PDA

View Full Version : New VAWT

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6

jsfisher
23rd December 2010, 08:36 PM
How about I say that it is possible for my new VAWT's to produce 10x to 1000x more than the current vawt's..... Would you say undoubtedly that this is not possible? Old ways die hard,yep they die!

How about just answering the question? Fill in the blanks:

"My super VAWT could be, to pick an example, a rotor of dimensions ____ by _____ atop a pole ____ high. In a 10mph wind this produces ______ kW. It costs _____ per unit."

likelystory
23rd December 2010, 08:42 PM
How about just answering the question? Fill in the blanks:

"My super VAWT could be, to pick an example, a rotor of dimensions ____ by _____ atop a pole ____ high. In a 10mph wind this produces ______ kW. It costs _____ per unit."

The questionaire is nonsensical. I can not provide exact figures, different Countries would charge more and less for the various size wind machines.

I gave a rough estimate about energy output.

Hellbound
23rd December 2010, 08:59 PM
I gave a rough estimate about energy output.

No you haven't. You'vemade vague claims, and whenever anyone ahs tried to pin down your numbers to a ballpark, you claim to be two states away. "10 to 1000 times" is a meaningless number unless you specifiy exactly what you are comparing. In theory, we could achieve that by building 1000 times as many conventional wind turbines.

So, be sepcific. Do you mean 10x to 1000 x for the same land area used (i.e.- the footprint of the area your turbines are placed in, compared to using the same area to place other models?)

Do you mean 10x to 1000x for an individual turbine of a similar size (i.e.-wind facing area of the blade "sweep range")?

Do you mean 10x to 1000x for a similar-sized turbine (the actual generator)?

Unles you're specific about what you're claiming, no one can tell you if it's possible or not.

likelystory
23rd December 2010, 09:02 PM
No you haven't. You'vemade vague claims, and whenever anyone ahs tried to pin down your numbers to a ballpark, you claim to be two states away. "10 to 1000 times" is a meaningless number unless you specifiy exactly what you are comparing. In theory, we could achieve that by building 1000 times as many conventional wind turbines.

So, be sepcific. Do you mean 10x to 1000 x for the same land area used (i.e.- the footprint of the area your turbines are placed in, compared to using the same area to place other models?)

Do you mean 10x to 1000x for an individual turbine of a similar size (i.e.-wind facing area of the blade "sweep range")?

Do you mean 10x to 1000x for a similar-sized turbine (the actual generator)?

Unles you're specific about what you're claiming, no one can tell you if it's possible or not.

10X to 1000x for the same footprint.....

It's about using less land area.

Hellbound
23rd December 2010, 09:03 PM
10X to 1000x for the same footprint.....

Land area footprint? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here.

likelystory
23rd December 2010, 09:10 PM
Land area footprint? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here.

The footprint being the foundation base area of what the Tower is secured to. Then there's a external lightweight steel framework for clusters of the super new VAWT's.

Do away with Nuclear altogether :)

Hellbound
23rd December 2010, 09:12 PM
The footprint being the foundation base area of what the Tower is secured to. Then there's a external lightweight steel framework for clusters of the super new VAWT's.

Do away with Nuclear altogether :)

So you aren't including the area covered by this "framework" for your version, only the foundation of the actual tower (for both your turbine and traditional designs)?

ETA: Also, are you including the needed "clear" space around the towers (i.e.-the distance needed between towers for the turbines in each to work properly)?

likelystory
23rd December 2010, 09:22 PM
So you aren't including the area covered by this "framework" for your version, only the foundation of the actual tower (for both your turbine and traditional designs)?

The framework is filled within it with '' spaced clusters'' of Towering Slender VAWT's (my style).

Maybe able to have 50 to 200 slender VAWT's within a square kilometre or square mile. This could be achieved even if the VAWT's were 200ft to 500 ft.... Although I personally believe 100 footers would serve the public interest's best .This would work wonderful in open farmland. Cattle and Sheep and agriculture and aquaculture would be compatible with the VAWT's.

ben m
23rd December 2010, 11:28 PM
How about I say that it is possible for my new VAWT's to produce 10x to 1000x more than the current vawt's..... Would you say undoubtedly that this is not possible? Old ways die hard,yep they die!

Some current VAWTs are 1" tall and produce a milliwatt.

Some current VAWTs are 20m tall and produce 100kW.

Pick a size and tell us about that size.

nathan
24th December 2010, 01:17 AM
This would work wonderful in open farmland. Cattle and Sheep and agriculture and aquaculture would be compatible with the VAWT's.

How would this be different to current turbine technology deployed on such sites?

Mashuna
24th December 2010, 02:02 AM
Pah. My new SuperVAWT technology will provide 100,000,000 times more energy then currently, by utilising special downwind faster than the wind technology, which means that the windspeed actually increases after it's powered the turbine blades. My only concern about bringing it to market is the effect of all the hurricanes if people build them too close together.

Oh, they have a tiny footprint and can be built out of Lego.

nathan
24th December 2010, 02:27 AM
Oh, they have a tiny footprint and can be built out of Lego.

Dinwar
24th December 2010, 08:12 AM
The questionaire is nonsensical. I can not provide exact figures, different Countries would charge more and less for the various size wind machines.Pick one and fill in the blanks with the data from that one. I don't care how you pick it--roll a d20 and for Size if you want. But until you fill in those numbers you have given us those three bits of data I mentioned earlier, none of which are any good.

This would work wonderful in open farmland. Cattle and Sheep and agriculture and aquaculture would be compatible with the VAWT's. You do realize that modern HAWTs are put in farmland, right? I mean, in Bowling Green Ohio they've had four good-size HAWTs for at least eight years, in the middle of some guy's fields. He leases the land to the power company. Amounts to somewhere around an acre, all told--maybe a bit closer to two, but not much for a guy farming 100,000 acres. Makes more off those two acres than he does off the other hundred in the field. Ohio even has laws encouraging farmers to rent portions of their land to power companies for wind farms--all using technology that's 10 years old, minimum. As for wind farms that AREN'T on cropland, they're usually on ridges or bajadas--places unfit for crops to begin with. So this bit is essentially irrelevant. In areas where cropland is an issue we already have technology to do this. In areas with large wind farms the farms are often placed where crops can't grow. Your great new technology will do precisely nothing to help the situation.

Then show the quotes to back up your stirring

The VAWT's do a stirring motion..... round and round This is starting to look like something Bishadi would write...

likelystory
24th December 2010, 03:03 PM
Pick one and fill in the blanks with the data from that one. I don't care how you pick it--roll a d20 and for Size if you want. But until you fill in those numbers you have given us those three bits of data I mentioned earlier, none of which are any good.

You do realize that modern HAWTs are put in farmland, right? I mean, in Bowling Green Ohio they've had four good-size HAWTs for at least eight years, in the middle of some guy's fields. He leases the land to the power company. Amounts to somewhere around an acre, all told--maybe a bit closer to two, but not much for a guy farming 100,000 acres. Makes more off those two acres than he does off the other hundred in the field. Ohio even has laws encouraging farmers to rent portions of their land to power companies for wind farms--all using technology that's 10 years old, minimum. As for wind farms that AREN'T on cropland, they're usually on ridges or bajadas--places unfit for crops to begin with. So this bit is essentially irrelevant. In areas where cropland is an issue we already have technology to do this. In areas with large wind farms the farms are often placed where crops can't grow. Your great new technology will do precisely nothing to help the situation.

This is starting to look like something Bishadi would write...

Yesterday I went to the boat marina and heard serveral HAWT's making a fair bit of noise. If they had VAWT's whether mine or what's currently on the market,then their neighbors and themselves would have a more serene setting.

Some local councils have banned HAWT's because of noise pollution. Some people argue the HAWT's stress out the farm animals,though I not convinced of this.

VAWT's are very quiet,so the farmers that do think their livestock is being affected then VAWT's is the ''alternative choice'' :)

nathan
25th December 2010, 01:10 AM
Yesterday I went to the boat marina and heard serveral HAWT's making a fair bit of noise. If they had VAWT's whether mine or what's currently on the market,then their neighbors and themselves would have a more serene setting.
The overwhelming sound of boats is halyards slapping against masts.

Some local councils have banned HAWT's because of noise pollution.
Which councils?
Some people argue the HAWT's stress out the farm animals
Which people?
VAWT's are very quiet,so the farmers that do think their livestock is being affected then VAWT's is the ''alternative choice'' :)
Evidence VAWTs are less disturbing to livestock?

Anyone notice the goalposts move *again*?

likelystory
25th December 2010, 07:52 PM
The overwhelming sound of boats is halyards slapping against masts

It was the HAWT's making the noise. I walked within about 50 ft of ''one'' of the Yachts,it was definetly the HAWT spinning round and round in the moderate breeze. No lashing of halyards against the masts.

nathan
26th December 2010, 01:46 AM
It was the HAWT's making the noise. I walked within about 50 ft of ''one'' of the Yachts,it was definetly the HAWT spinning round and round in the moderate breeze. No lashing of halyards against the masts.

Thanks for ignoring the more substantive questions!

Mashuna
26th December 2010, 04:17 AM

Traditional - I was never to good with the technic stuff. There's probably improvements to be made if you're a technic lego expert.

likelystory
26th December 2010, 07:31 AM
Traditional - I was never to good with the technic stuff. There's probably improvements to be made if you're a technic lego expert.

Can one use Neodymium Lego or Ferrite Lego?. I made a big step by recently contactin the Chinese for their prices for their strong magnets.

likelystory
26th December 2010, 05:52 PM
After looking more closely it's the ''ferrite magnets'' which will make the cheapest contribution to the new VAWT's.

Dinwar
26th December 2010, 07:47 PM
Yesterday I went to the boat marina and heard serveral HAWT's making a fair bit of noise. If they had VAWT's whether mine or what's currently on the market,then their neighbors and themselves would have a more serene setting.

Some local councils have banned HAWT's because of noise pollution. Some people argue the HAWT's stress out the farm animals,though I not convinced of this.

VAWT's are very quiet,so the farmers that do think their livestock is being affected then VAWT's is the ''alternative choice'' All of this is evaluation--and most of it about other peoples' technology. Are you unwilling or unable to provide the technical details about your "great discovery"?

likelystory
26th December 2010, 08:36 PM
All of this is evaluation--and most of it about other peoples' technology. Are you unwilling or unable to provide the technical details about your "great discovery"?

The WIND is like a fruit tree. The best fruit is up high,yet the lower fruit will still provide :)

Dinwar
26th December 2010, 08:50 PM
The WIND is like a fruit tree. The best fruit is up high,yet the lower fruit will still provide This is not data--this is an evasion, and a bad one at that (I'd recommend against purple prose while evading direct questions).

Are you unable or merely unwilling to provide actual data on your devices?

likelystory
26th December 2010, 08:56 PM
This is not data--this is an evasion, and a bad one at that (I'd recommend against purple prose while evading direct questions).

Are you unable or merely unwilling to provide actual data on your devices?

The Taller the VAWT the better it produces, think of maturity,from head to toe. It's the size that makes my machines the most basic favourable energy product ever. Except for my innovation to run CARS and HEAVY HAULAGE TRUCKS off their own ''self''.

Dinwar
26th December 2010, 09:04 PM
The Taller the VAWT the better it produces, think of maturity,from head to toe. It's the size that makes my machines the most basic favourable energy product ever. Except for my innovation to run CARS and HEAVY HAULAGE TRUCKS off their own ''self''. None of this is data.

Are you unwilling or incapable of providing data on this device?

likelystory
26th December 2010, 09:17 PM
None of this is data.

Are you unwilling or incapable of providing data on this device?

Have you not stated it is impossible for my new VAWT to feed the world's energy demand?
Hey since I came on here saying I could build a feesable wind machine (turbine, generator,motor), you and others have said NO ,NOT POSSIBLE because of physics.

As I stipulated, the taller the more power,

likelystory
26th December 2010, 09:23 PM
BTW Dinwar you and your neighbors with your skill level could build one of my style of wind machines in a week ( complete), and get off the electrical control grid.

Can you make your own magnets from Magnet Powder, that would really reduce the cost of ''outlay''.

Dinwar
26th December 2010, 09:30 PM
Okay, I'm beginning to think you're intentionally trying to annoy me.

None of this is data.

Are you unwilling or incapable of providing data on this device?

Hey since I came on here saying I could build a feesable wind machine (turbine, generator,motor), you and others have said NO ,NOT POSSIBLE because of physics.
Prove us wrong. Provide the data on your machine.

nathan
27th December 2010, 01:19 AM
After looking more closely it's the ''ferrite magnets'' which will make the cheapest contribution to the new VAWT's.

Build one.

excaza
27th December 2010, 02:44 AM
What is this magnet nonsense you've latched onto now?

excaza
27th December 2010, 02:45 AM
Have you not stated it is impossible for my new VAWT to feed the world's energy demand?

No, we're stating that what you're claiming is impossible, infeasible, impractical, or some combination of the 3.

likelystory
27th December 2010, 02:53 AM
What is this magnet nonsense you've latched onto now?

Make one's own homemade magnets for wind machines out of magnet powder.

I don't know how to sinter,though maybe wet moulding the powder with a binder?

ben m
27th December 2010, 06:11 AM
Make one's own homemade magnets for wind machines out of magnet powder.

I don't know how to sinter,though maybe wet moulding the powder with a binder?

You've obviously forgotten about your plan to build a gazillion turbines to generate terawatts of power. Those turbines are built in a factory---not your garage---and whatever savings you think you can realize in a hobby project (there's only one: your labor is free) will disappear.

By the way, magnet powder in a binder gives you a refrigerator magnet with fields of extremely low quality.

likelystory
27th December 2010, 06:32 AM
You've obviously forgotten about your plan to build a gazillion turbines to generate terawatts of power. Those turbines are built in a factory---not your garage---and whatever savings you think you can realize in a hobby project (there's only one: your labor is free) will disappear.

By the way, magnet powder in a binder gives you a refrigerator magnet with fields of extremely low quality.

What about Neodymium Powder for moulding? Oh and now I can make threads on David Icke forum.

excaza
27th December 2010, 06:44 AM
and what are these marvelous garage magnets for?

nathan
27th December 2010, 07:35 AM
Make one's own homemade magnets for wind machines out of magnet powder.

Build one.

I don't know how to sinter,though maybe wet moulding the powder with a binder?

Hire someone who does.

nathan
27th December 2010, 07:36 AM
What about Neodymium Powder for moulding?

Hire a consultant.

Dinwar
27th December 2010, 08:20 AM
You've obviously forgotten about your plan to build a gazillion turbines to generate terawatts of power. Does it really surprise you that he's backpeddling yet again? Every time you try to pin him down on specifics he evades the question, and every time we come uncomfortably close to concrete statements about this great new technology the technology changes. :rolleyes:

ben m
27th December 2010, 11:40 AM
What about Neodymium Powder for moulding? Oh and now I can make threads on David Icke forum.

Ferrite powder in a binder makes a cheap refrigerator magnet. NdFeB powder in a binder makes an expensive refrigerator magnet.

Likelystory, please quit this thread and come back in 4 years when you've either (a) taken a year's worth of engineering courses at college level, or (b) when you've actually built a wind turbine. In the meantime, you're just spouting fifteen different forms of nonsense.

slyjoe
27th December 2010, 11:46 AM
Ferrite powder in a binder makes a cheap refrigerator magnet. NdFeB powder in a binder makes an expensive refrigerator magnet.

Likelystory, please quit this thread and come back in 4 years when you've either (a) taken a year's worth of engineering courses at college level, or (b) when you've actually built a wind turbine. In the meantime, you're just spouting fifteen different forms of nonsense.

Intentional or not, THAT was funny.

likelystory
27th December 2010, 04:12 PM
Does it really surprise you that he's backpeddling yet again? Every time you try to pin him down on specifics he evades the question, and every time we come uncomfortably close to concrete statements about this great new technology the technology changes. :rolleyes:

Not backpeddling at all.

You have stated it's impossible to cluster wind towers together and have them producing power. Why is this so? Because you have ''mental images'' of what you believe the towers would look like.

There's no gearing needed for my new VAWT.

ben m
27th December 2010, 06:35 PM
You have stated it's impossible to cluster wind towers together and have them producing power. Why is this so? Because you have ''mental images'' of what you believe the towers would look like.

No, it's because of the laws of fluid dynamics. Do you know some different laws of fluid dynamics that tell you that Betz's Law is wrong?

TjW
27th December 2010, 06:36 PM
Not backpeddling at all.

You have stated it's impossible to cluster wind towers together and have them producing power. Why is this so? Because you have ''mental images'' of what you believe the towers would look like.

There's no gearing needed for my new VAWT.

So how fast will it spin?

excaza
27th December 2010, 06:40 PM
You have stated it's impossible to cluster wind towers together and have them producing power. Why is this so? Because you have ''mental images'' of what you believe the towers would look like.
No, it's what my aerospace engineering degree has taught me. Fluid dynamics.

There's no gearing needed for my new VAWT.
Really now...

Dinwar
27th December 2010, 07:11 PM
You have stated it's impossible to cluster wind towers together and have them producing power. Why is this so? Because you have ''mental images'' of what you believe the towers would look like.

There's no gearing needed for my new VAWT. No, it's because I've asked the people who ACTUALLY build wind turbines why they don't move them closer together. These people have spent a lot of money studying this, and have a vested interest in pulling as much power out of the air as possible. When you see a multi-billion dollar industry doing something that appears to be against their best interests you can bet your backside that they've got a reason.

And what exactly does gearing have to do with fluid dynamics? Do I even want to know the answer?....

Also, do you have any data on these towers to present?

Sean84
27th December 2010, 07:13 PM
For those who are wondering how the revolutionary new design works:
I am able to move '' CUPS '' and cutlery and chairs and tables into mid air while facing the desired objects with my eyes and or hands .
They run on magic.

And, why it has to remain super secret:
Several and more . Yet I can't disclose the information due to Global panic that would arise . Yet the Globe will view me when I become public . It is not normal to move object by mind power . People will try to kill me . I have dreamed it many times about different people of different races trying to silence me , yet they don't succeed .

It's all so simple. Crazy simple.

Maybe high likelystory will come around and actually explain how his design works. Until then... magic.

TjW
27th December 2010, 07:43 PM
For those who are wondering how the revolutionary new design works:

They run on magic.

And, why it has to remain super secret:

It's all so simple. Crazy simple.

Maybe high likelystory will come around and actually explain how his design works. Until then... magic.

I suspect it works like this:

1. Make unsupported and unsupportable claim in an initial post.
2. Bask in the attention of the replies this generates.
3. ???
4 Profit.

ApolloGnomon
27th December 2010, 08:03 PM
The Taller the VAWT the better it produces, think of maturity,from head to toe. It's the size that makes my machines the most basic favourable energy product ever. Except for my innovation to run CARS and HEAVY HAULAGE TRUCKS off their own ''self''.

Oh gods. Please don't tell me you think you can drive a truck with a turbine on top to power the truck. The only guy to ever do that was Wiley Coyote and he used it to drive off a cliff. Very dangerous technology.

likelystory
27th December 2010, 08:44 PM
Oh gods. Please don't tell me you think you can drive a truck with a turbine on top to power the truck. The only guy to ever do that was Wiley Coyote and he used it to drive off a cliff. Very dangerous technology.

Are you saying my wind machines are impossible in an ordinary world?

excaza
27th December 2010, 08:46 PM
you don't see why trying to use a wind turbine to power a vehicle is a bad idea?

likelystory
27th December 2010, 08:56 PM
you don't see why trying to use a wind turbine to power a vehicle is a bad idea?

lol in friendly jest ;)

ynot
27th December 2010, 09:47 PM
lol in friendly jest ;)
I bet your “new VAWT” wouldn’t work as good for DDWFTTW as a HAWT propeller does. In my experiments I found that a single propeller worked better then two. Surface area presented to the wind doesn’t necessarily increase T efficiency. But you would already know that of course.

Hope you’re not spending so much time on this forum that you won’t get your prototype up and running in the time you previously gave.

nathan
28th December 2010, 01:14 AM
There's no gearing needed for my new VAWT.

Build one and prove it.

excaza
28th December 2010, 03:23 AM
lol in friendly jest ;)

That doesn't answer my question.

likelystory
28th December 2010, 03:43 AM
I bet your “new VAWT” wouldn’t work as good for DDWFTTW as a HAWT propeller does. In my experiments I found that a single propeller worked better then two. Surface area presented to the wind doesn’t necessarily increase T efficiency. But you would already know that of course.

Hope you’re not spending so much time on this forum that you won’t get your prototype up and running in the time you previously gave.

I can improve o HAWT's to a certain point,but they can't match the he economical advantanges of the VAWT's ''newstyle''.

It's the magnets which make the new happen;)

excaza
28th December 2010, 05:25 AM
I thought it was the new motor?

nathan
28th December 2010, 09:51 AM
I thought it was the new motor?

That's true, but more specifically it is the magnets in the motor. What likelystory is apparently too dumb to realize is that to prove he has a better generator, all he needs to build is the generator -- not the windmill driving it. That makes his fantastic invention much easier to demonstrate.

ynot
28th December 2010, 12:15 PM
I can improve o HAWT's to a certain point,but they can't match the he economical advantanges of the VAWT's ''newstyle''.

It's the magnets which make the new happen;)
You begin with “New VAWT” then move on to “new motor” and now it’s “new magnets“! Have you got three new inventions going on at once or are you just moving the goalposts? I’m finding it really difficult to take you seriously.

likelystory
28th December 2010, 05:58 PM
No, it's because I've asked the people who ACTUALLY build wind turbines why they don't move them closer together. These people have spent a lot of money studying this, and have a vested interest in pulling as much power out of the air as possible. When you see a multi-billion dollar industry doing something that appears to be against their best interests you can bet your backside that they've got a reason.

And what exactly does gearing have to do with fluid dynamics? Do I even want to know the answer?....

Also, do you have any data on these towers to present?
The people obviously don't know about VAWT's. I seen a video with two VAWT's close together in one metal framework.

Oh gods. Please don't tell me you think you can drive a truck with a turbine on top to power the truck. The only guy to ever do that was Wiley Coyote and he used it to drive off a cliff. Very dangerous technology.

Trucks powered by wind? Have you been trying to read my mind?

you don't see why trying to use a wind turbine to power a vehicle is a bad idea?

Wind can power cars indefinetly. If you eventually see the ''inside'' of my new VAWT, then you realize how to powe Motor Bikes,Cars,Trains and Trucks on WIND POWER.... No more for digging for Oil

Build one and prove it.

Yes

That's true, but more specifically it is the magnets in the motor. What likelystory is apparently too dumb to realize is that to prove he has a better generator, all he needs to build is the generator -- not the windmill driving it. That makes his fantastic invention much easier to demonstrate.

I want a complete working machine.

You begin with “New VAWT” then move on to “new motor” and now it’s “new magnets“! Have you got three new inventions going on at once or are you just moving the goalposts? I’m finding it really difficult to take you seriously.

I am not playing games.This stuff is all real and workable. Because you are able to build stuff (I watched your home made Videos), you will wonder why no one ever thought of such a simplistic idea before. Even Tesla would be wondering ''how simple''.

For the car,the wind motor/generator would work far better with Neodymium Magnets

I almost want to give my two inventions for free,because I'm sick of wacthing the Earth being ruined throuh bad practices from the Oil Companies. There's a place in Canada where certain Bears called ''Spirit Bears'' would be in danger of becoming extinct as a direct result of Oil Companies wanting that Coastal area to pipeline oil to Oil Tankers.

One major oil spil in the Forrest or and on the Coast spells DISATER for the Bears

TjW
28th December 2010, 06:24 PM
Fortunately, the bears can't spell very well.

excaza
28th December 2010, 06:54 PM
Wind can power cars indefinetly. If you eventually see the ''inside'' of my new VAWT, then you realize how to powe Motor Bikes,Cars,Trains and Trucks on WIND POWER.... No more for digging for Oil

No, you can't power a car by putting a turbine on it. If you don't see why, then you have more important things to worry about than trying to design a wind turbine. Like, an education.

likelystory
28th December 2010, 07:40 PM
No, you can't power a car by putting a turbine on it. If you don't see why, then you have more important things to worry about than trying to design a wind turbine. Like, an education.

My new style motor will succeed.

excaza
28th December 2010, 07:50 PM
Not unless it's 100% efficient, which is impossible.

likelystory
28th December 2010, 08:10 PM
Not unless it's 100% efficient, which is impossible.

The wind is the fuel.

nathan
29th December 2010, 01:58 AM
I want a complete working machine

Only because that allows you to continually move the goal posts. It is unnecessary for you to make money off this.

nathan
29th December 2010, 02:00 AM
My new style motor will succeed.

Build one and prove it.

Hellbound
29th December 2010, 07:58 AM
The wind is the fuel.

Someone's failed high school physics. I can see many problems with this idea, and the fact that you can't pretty much tells everyone else how firm your grasp of reality is.

Am I the only one imaging soemthing like this?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6874d1b5aae7863b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22027)

ynot
29th December 2010, 08:11 AM
My new style motor will succeed.
A positive attitude is often the last refuge of failure.

But good luck anyway.

Dinwar
29th December 2010, 08:24 AM
The people obviously don't know about VAWT's. I seen a video with two VAWT's close together in one metal framework.

Oh, yes--the guys who make money off wind power disagree with some video you saw once; obviously the guys who have a vested interest in this got it wrong. :rolleyes:

Got any data for us yet?

excaza
29th December 2010, 09:06 AM
The wind is the fuel.

In a car, your 'wind' is generated using the car's propulsion system (move your car with the motor, airflow is generated, spins the blades). Energy is generated from the drag of the blades, which both slows the vehicle down and turns your turbine to generate electricity. In an ideal world, where things are 100% efficient, this would (theoretically, and ignoring the drag on the rest of your car, along with other losses) work. If you could even get it moving, it would be obnoxiously slow.

However, since we don't live in a ideal world, you're never going to generate more energy (solely with a wind turbine) than you lose through drag and other losses.

You'd be far better off with a sail.

ben m
29th December 2010, 11:28 AM
I seen a video with two VAWT's close together in one metal framework.

The only thing that proves is: you're not the only person who doesn't understand fluid dynamics.

Alternatively, the less efficient a turbine is to begin with (i.e. the further it is from the Betz limit) the less it matters how close it is to its neighbors. Maybe that's the case in the video you saw.

I want a complete working machine.

No one tests new technology by building a "complete working machine". The Wright Brothers didn't sit around on their butts until they were ready to build a complete working airplane. They built (and tested) wing parts, and propellers, and engines, and engines+propellers, and airframes-without-engines, and so on. After each of the parts was built, tested, and understood, they put them together.

I am not playing games.This stuff is all real and workable.

"I can picture it working in my head" is not the same as "real and workable". "real" means you've already built it---obviously not true. "workable" means that you've gone through the engineering details and solved all of the obvious equations (aerodynamics of the turbine, EM fields in the generator, structural engineering of the frame)---also obviously not true.

Dinwar
29th December 2010, 11:49 AM
You know, the question of whether this should be a vertical or horizontal turbine is actually irrelevant to this--it's a minor detail as to how to best utilize the motor likelystory says he invented. It doesn't matter whether you get your energy from the wind, from nuclear power, or from coal, electricity is mostly generated via spinning a magnet that's surrounded by conductive wires. What spins the magnet doesn't matter.

Which leads to my suggestion: likelystory, to convince us that your motor works, simply build a motor as big as you'd like. Get a motor of the same type and same size which utilizes standard technology. Rig it so that water from a flowing stream turns the motor in the way that wind turbines spin the motor (not really that hard, it's just a different sort of prop blade). Calculate how much energy is output by each. If your motor outputs more energy than the normal one, you get to laugh at us (and we'll be a bit more inclined to take your ideas for clustering these things seriously). If it doesn't, it won't matter what energy source you utilize the problems will be the same.

This will have an additional value: The motors will be cheaper and easier to construct than the full turbines. Which means that you'll have electricity companies clammoring to pay you whatever you want to upgrade their existing structures. This makes them more efficient, using less fuel, endangering fewer organisms, and makes you filty rich. A scale model isn't going to take that long or that much cash to build, and has the potential of serving all of the goals you've presented and then some.

What do you say?

likelystory
29th December 2010, 12:21 PM
In 1934 the known Law of Pyschics according to entomologist August Magnan means all Bumblebees are permanently grounded until further notice.

Universities destroy knowledge?Where have I heard this before,Um YouTube.

Dinwar
29th December 2010, 12:26 PM
In 1934 the known Law of Pyschics according to entomologist August Magnan means all Bumblebees are permanetly grounded until further notice.
You don't get to brag about how Galleleo was laughed at until you're proven right. For every scientist that's laughed at and vindicated there are hundreds, if not thousands, who are laughed at for perfectly valid reasons and who are wrong.

likelystory
29th December 2010, 12:50 PM
You don't get to brag about how Galleleo was laughed at until you're proven right. For every scientist that's laughed at and vindicated there are hundreds, if not thousands, who are laughed at for perfectly valid reasons and who are wrong.

I seen a Bumble Bee fly,yet so called knowledgble ones say the Law of Physics must be followed or you won't get funding for more blackboard chalk.

I go back to Edison who was jealous and angry and incorrect at Tesla,and Thomas was a man of Science..... Science seems to have poor representation throughout all generations.Why's that?

Seems to be alot a hand waving for certain people making science mistakes.

Shalamar
29th December 2010, 01:01 PM
I seen a Bumble Bee fly,yet so called knowledgble ones say the Law of Physics must be followed or you won't get funding for more blackboard chalk.

I go back to Edison who was jealous and angry and incorrect at Tesla,and Thomas was a man of Science..... Science seems to have poor representation throughout all generations.Why's that?

Seems to be alot a hand waving for certain people making science mistakes.

Like yourself?

Yes, we know, you don't know science, you don't understand science, and you hate science.

Want to prove people wrong? Build your device. Show your work. Present the data and the math. Otherwise, well, My VAWT is far far superior to yours.

likelystory
29th December 2010, 01:12 PM
Like yourself?

Yes, we know, you don't know science, you don't understand science, and you hate science.

Want to prove people wrong? Build your device. Show your work. Present the data and the math. Otherwise, well, My VAWT is far far superior to yours.

So you know and understand science? Where can one buy or borrow this book describing the wisdom and understanding of Science in it's entirety?

Dinwar
29th December 2010, 01:14 PM
I seen a Bumble Bee fly,yet so called knowledgble ones say the Law of Physics must be followed or you won't get funding for more blackboard chalk.
You obviously are unaware of how science works. We LIKE people who disrupt our understanding of reality--provided they back it up. Also, again, you don't get to brag about being the new Galleleo until you are proven right. That's the part pseudoscientists tend to forget.

Science seems to have poor representation throughout all generations.Why's that?
No clue what you're talking about here--many of the most famous men and women of science were well-liked and popular, if not famous. But this is completely off topic.

Seems to be alot a hand waving for certain people making science mistakes. No, it's that science expects to make mistakes. In fact, science can be thought of as a means of culling out all the potential mistakes until we find the truth. Mistakes aren't considered a bad thing in and of themselves--Einstein had to publish a remarkable number of retractions, as I understand, for example. It's arogant mistakes that annoy us, mistakes about basic stuff while behaving in a beligerant fashion, mistakes made by people who brag about not understanding the theoretical backround of the field they're discussing.

Got any data to show us yet? Or, have you decided to run the test I mentioned?

So you know and understand science? Where can one buy or borrow this book describing the wisdom and understanding of Science in it's entirety? *facepalm

You really don't understand how science works, do you? I don't mean this as an insult--I'm just making an observation. But you genuinely don't undersatnd the way science is done.

To answer your question, there isn't any. However, if you go to your local library you can find many good peer-reviewed journals on topics related to your turbine.

Hellbound
29th December 2010, 01:19 PM
You are also unaware of the actual "bumblebees can't fly" myth. No scientist, anywhere, ever stated that "bumblebees cannot fly". That's your mis-interpretation, intended to do nothign more than support your pre-(and ill-)concieved notions. What was stated was an acknowledgment by scientists that current laws did not explain how bumblebees flew...in other words, it was an acknowledgement by science that our understanding was incomplete.

Whereas, in contrast, you simply ignore any knowledge that contradicts what you believe.

likelystory
29th December 2010, 01:23 PM
You obviously are unaware of how science works. We LIKE people who disrupt our understanding of reality--provided they back it up. Also, again, you don't get to brag about being the new Galleleo until you are proven right. That's the part pseudoscientists tend to forget.

No clue what you're talking about here--many of the most famous men and women of science were well-liked and popular, if not famous. But this is completely off topic.

No, it's that science expects to make mistakes. In fact, science can be thought of as a means of culling out all the potential mistakes until we find the truth. Mistakes aren't considered a bad thing in and of themselves--Einstein had to publish a remarkable number of retractions, as I understand, for example. It's arogant mistakes that annoy us, mistakes about basic stuff while behaving in a beligerant fashion, mistakes made by people who brag about not understanding the theoretical backround of the field they're discussing.

Got any data to show us yet? Or, have you decided to run the test I mentioned?

Your data along with others has already judged my new VAWT as not being
possible.

Even when talking about a new wind motor to run a car,you also say not possible. Though why should you believe or disbelieve what I'm suggesting?

Dinwar
29th December 2010, 01:27 PM
Your data along with others has already judged my new VAWT as not being
possible.

Even when talking about a new wind motor to run a car,you also say not possible. Though why should you believe or disbelieve what I'm suggesting? It's not for me to support your ideas. I'm in an antagonistic role in this discussion, remember? YOU are claiming to violate the laws of thermodynamics (getting more out of a system than you put in) and to revolutionize power generation--the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate your claims. Or to shut up and go away if you can't (or, more respectibly, to issue a retraction).

excaza
29th December 2010, 01:34 PM
Your data along with others has already judged my new VAWT as not being possible.
And your data is nonexistent.

Even when talking about a new wind motor to run a car,you also say not possible. Though why should you believe or disbelieve what I'm suggesting?

I already explained to you why you can't power a car by bolting a wind turbine onto it. If you disagree with my statement, then you need to explain why, not say "magnets."

likelystory
29th December 2010, 01:34 PM
What was stated was an acknowledgment by scientists that current laws did not explain how bumblebees flew...in other words, it was an acknowledgement by science that our understanding was incomplete.

Current LAWS? The Bumblebee was flying because of itself.....Saying ''current laws did not explain'' is an untrue belief system.

Science did not determine itself to be incomplete.Science dos not have a voice to speak of itself.

If you believe science is incomplete,then why all this talk about ''how science'' proves my new VAWT is not possible?

Science did not make the Bumble Bee, God made the Bumble Bee :)

Hellbound
29th December 2010, 01:52 PM
Current LAWS? The Bumblebee was flying because of itself.....Saying ''current laws did not explain'' is an untrue belief system.

So a scientists saying "we don't understand this" somehow means science is false?

Science did not determine itself to be incomplete.Science dos not have a voice to speak of itself.

Science is the combined work of the scientists who do the work. Using phrases such as "science states" is shorthand for "the majority of scientists agree" or "current theory predicts". Really, have you even made it to high school yet? This is fairly basic and should be covered in earlier English and Literature classes.

If you believe science is incomplete,then why all this talk about ''how science'' proves my new VAWT is not possible?

I don't believe you'll ever find any scientist who would say that science is anythign but incomplete. Yes, we know science is incomplete. However, that does not mean we don't have parts of it that we can be very, very sure of. Parts that have been the foundation of successful physics for quite some time now. And these foundation pieces, the pieces that are perhaps the most confirmed in physics, are some of the ones your claims would violate. Your objection here is similar to someone trying to save money to buy a house, and then claiming they have no money because they only have 50% of the cost of a new home.

Science did not make the Bumble Bee, God made the Bumble Bee :)

Take that to religion.

Let me see if I can simplify what I actually said, so if you want to rant you can at least make some sort of sense.

Point 1. The claim that "scientists said bumblebees can't fly" is false.
Point 2. Scientists, at one time, did say that the current understanding of the laws of physics did not allow for bumblebee flight.
Point 2a. Scientists are not so ignorant as to ignore the fact that bumblebees can fly. They could observe the behavior. It was obvious they could fly.
Point 2b. Thus, combining 2 and 2a scientists knew they did not have a full understanding of the laws, because they could not explain the aerodynamics of bumblebee flight.
Point 3. The erroneous statement of Point 1 is a corruption of the actual statement in Point 2b.
Point 4. Since that time, science (or, to make you happier, scientists) have investigated this further, and now science (the body of knowledge) has an understanding of bumblebee flight.

So when you stated:In 1934 the known Law of [Pysics] according to entomologist August Magnan means all Bumblebees are permanently grounded until further notice.

You were either mistaken or lying. The known laws of physics at the time did not explain how they flew, but no scientist ever denied they could fly or in any way implied that the current body of knowledge trumped actual observation.

If you need me to break it down for you further, so you can understand, I believe I can compress it into a "Dick and Jane" format. Just let me know.

Dinwar
29th December 2010, 01:56 PM
By the way, the fallacy likelystory is committing is the Nirvana Fallacy--because it's not 100% absolutely perfect, we must discard the whole thing. Ironically, this is used to support a notion that is infeasable.

excaza
29th December 2010, 02:03 PM
LS, you're not going to be able to dodge your lack of anything substantial by trying to engage in a philosophical debate.

likelystory
29th December 2010, 02:25 PM
So a scientists saying "we don't understand this" somehow means science is false?

Science is the combined work of the scientists who do the work. Using phrases such as "science states" is shorthand for "the majority of scientists agree" or "current theory predicts". Really, have you even made it to high school yet? This is fairly basic and should be covered in earlier English and Literature classes.

I don't believe you'll ever find any scientist who would say that science is anythign but incomplete. Yes, we know science is incomplete. However, that does not mean we don't have parts of it that we can be very, very sure of. Parts that have been the foundation of successful physics for quite some time now. And these foundation pieces, the pieces that are perhaps the most confirmed in physics, are some of the ones your claims would violate. Your objection here is similar to someone trying to save money to buy a house, and then claiming they have no money because they only have 50% of the cost of a new home.

Take that to religion.

Let me see if I can simplify what I actually said, so if you want to rant you can at least make some sort of sense.

Point 1. The claim that "scientists said bumblebees can't fly" is false.
Point 2. Scientists, at one time, did say that the current understanding of the laws of physics did not allow for bumblebee flight.
Point 2a. Scientists are not so ignorant as to ignore the fact that bumblebees can fly. They could observe the behavior. It was obvious they could fly.
Point 2b. Thus, combining 2 and 2a scientists knew they did not have a full understanding of the laws, because they could not explain the aerodynamics of bumblebee flight.
Point 3. The erroneous statement of Point 1 is a corruption of the actual statement in Point 2b.
Point 4. Since that time, science (or, to make you happier, scientists) have investigated this further, and now science (the body of knowledge) has an understanding of bumblebee flight.

So when you stated:

You were either mistaken or lying. The known laws of physics at the time did not explain how they flew, but no scientist ever denied they could fly or in any way implied that the current body of knowledge trumped actual observation.

If you need me to break it down for you further, so you can understand, I believe I can compress it into a "Dick and Jane" format. Just let me know.

It was not known.... So the claim of ''the known laws of physics'' is a lie... One cannot say ''it was known at the time'' and then say afterwards, it was really not known''........ To know is to KNOW, not claim something because one believes in it to be so from ones own hopeful speculation.... Scientists use speculation to sound intelligent.

Even a child knew Bumble Bees could fly, no known (belief system) at the tme psuedo-law of physics required for that.

The more I look into ''man's''science the cheaper it gets.

Here's a brief summary about my new VAWT to date;

The taller the VAWT the better it works.
Slender in shape.
Magnets are the key.
Small footprint.
Clusters of new VAWT.
Gigawatts and Terawatts.
1000 footers,though 100 footers are more suitable.
Light steel framework for VAWT's up to 1000 feet.
Prefered near Coastal areas.
And alot cheaper to build.

Dinwar
29th December 2010, 02:42 PM
e taller the VAWT the better it works.
There's no data to support this

Slender in shape.
Shape of the pole it stands on is irrelevant.

Not new

Magnets are the key.
No data supports this

Small footprint.
No data supports this

Clusters of new VAWT.
Largely irrelevant, and no data has been provided showing efficiency of clusters.

Gigawatts and Terawatts.
Mere speculation, with no data to support it.

1000 footers,though 100 footers are more suitable.
Irrelevant to how your motor works.

Light steel framework for VAWT's up to 1000 feet.
Never mentioned before, and what you make your towers out of is irrelevent to how your motor works.

Prefered near Coastal areas.
Irrelevant.

And alot cheaper to build.
Mere speculation, with no data to support it (all the data we DO have states that it'll be exactly as expensive as any other wind turbine of equal height).

ben m
29th December 2010, 04:42 PM
Even when talking about a new wind motor to run a car,you also say not possible. Though why should you believe or disbelieve what I'm suggesting?

Because there is a large difference between "something that a layman sketches on a napkin that looks sort of like a good idea" and "an actual good idea".

I do believe that you have a crude back-of-the-napkin sketch that looks like a good idea to you. I also believe that you're mistaken about how good an idea it is. Understand?

Leonardo da Vinci or Octave Chanute or Otto Lilienthal could say the same thing you are saying: "I have an idea for a heavier-than-air flying machine. Why should you disbelieve me?" (But look at their actual machines. They didn't work. A good-looking napkin-sketch idea is not enough.)

likelystory
29th December 2010, 04:46 PM
And your data is nonexistent.

I already explained to you why you can't power a car by bolting a wind turbine onto it. If you disagree with my statement, then you need to explain why, not say "magnets."

I said it's possible to power a car by ''wind''. Public or Private transport such as Coach Buses would be great for my wind motor/wind generator.

And Trains,the faster the train goes the more power produced. I don't know what happens to the excess power,maybe dump it in the Earth?

Shalamar
29th December 2010, 04:54 PM
So you know and understand science? Where can one buy or borrow this book describing the wisdom and understanding of Science in it's entirety?

Its called a school. Perhaps you could try it?

Where is your data?

ben m
29th December 2010, 05:11 PM
I said it's possible to power a car by ''wind''. Public or Private transport such as Coach Buses would be great for my wind motor/wind generator.

And Trains,the faster the train goes the more power produced. I don't know what happens to the excess power,maybe dump it in the Earth?

You're serious? A turbine on top of the bus powers the bus, using the "wind" generated by the bus's motion through the air?

This is not only a dumb idea, it's a trivial dumb idea---it's the sort of thing that high-school physics teachers invent as a laughable example of how conservation-of-energy prevents perpetual motion machines from working. Yes, likelystory, you have "invented" a perpetual motion machine. Join the club:

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/03/wind_powered_electric_car.html
http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107/Energy/EnergyQuiz.html
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/people/people.htm

likelystory
29th December 2010, 05:24 PM
You're serious? A turbine on top of the bus powers the bus, using the "wind" generated by the bus's motion through the air?

This is not only a dumb idea, it's a trivial dumb idea---it's the sort of thing that high-school physics teachers invent as a laughable example of how conservation-of-energy prevents perpetual motion machines from working. Yes, likelystory, you have "invented" a perpetual motion machine. Join the club:

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/03/wind_powered_electric_car.html
http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107/Energy/EnergyQuiz.html
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/people/people.htm

I have capitalized on the idea making it ideal for self supplying..... My wind motor/generator is ''a fair bit different''. Bye Bye Miss American Pie.

The bowsers will dry up,new ideas make the old ways redundant. Yet I want a peaceful transition of power :)

RussDill
29th December 2010, 06:05 PM
Can you make me a sailboat with a fan that pushes air against the sail to make it go?

rwguinn
29th December 2010, 06:11 PM
You're serious? A turbine on top of the bus powers the bus, using the "wind" generated by the bus's motion through the air?

This is not only a dumb idea, it's a trivial dumb idea---it's the sort of thing that high-school physics teachers invent as a laughable example of how conservation-of-energy prevents perpetual motion machines from working. Yes, likelystory, you have "invented" a perpetual motion machine. Join the club:

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/03/wind_powered_electric_car.html
http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107/Energy/EnergyQuiz.html

I have capitalized on the idea making it ideal for self supplying..... My wind motor/generator is ''a fair bit different''. Bye Bye Miss American Pie.

The bowsers will dry up,new ideas make the old ways redundant. Yet I want a peaceful transition of power :)
Oh, yeah...

likelystory
29th December 2010, 06:27 PM
Can you make me a sailboat with a fan that pushes air against the sail to make it go?

Not as yet,but could make a sailboat with doing away with sails,except for the sails being a reserve measure if and when the new VAWT MASTS FAIL.

Dinwar
29th December 2010, 06:51 PM
I have capitalized on the idea making it ideal for self supplying..... My wind motor/generator is ''a fair bit different''. Bye Bye Miss American Pie.

The bowsers will dry up,new ideas make the old ways redundant. Yet I want a peaceful transition of power I think that bishadi has a new screen name.....

likelystory
29th December 2010, 08:13 PM
I think that bishadi has a new screen name.....

No ,I am me not him or her.

RussDill
29th December 2010, 08:16 PM
Not as yet,but could make a sailboat with doing away with sails,except for the sails being a reserve measure if and when the new VAWT MASTS FAIL.

Well work on that please because I'm not sure what to do in the doldrums where the is no wind.

likelystory
29th December 2010, 08:17 PM

Oh, yeah...

Even aeroplanes could run off my new wind motor/generator,yet it means going back to ''propellers'', no more fuel laden Jet Liners burning down towers.

likelystory
29th December 2010, 08:23 PM
Well work on that please because I'm not sure what to do in the doldrums where the is no wind.

You would have a ''battery bank'' which would get you a couple more or so nautical miles into the sit back and relax theme, come on it's a cruise to enjoy. No sail (electric motor) around the world record breaker ;)

excaza
29th December 2010, 09:38 PM
Good lord, this thread went from dumb to dumber...

One comment (not related to above statement)
e taller the VAWT the better it works.
There's no data to support this

Generally, wind speed scales with height (I can't remember the relation off the top of my head, I'll look for it later when I'm not falling asleep), so he is technically correct in saying the "tallness" is a factor, not to mention a taller tower would have a larger blade area.

But this ignores the added weight and cost. Minor details :rolleyes:

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the list...

likelystory
29th December 2010, 11:45 PM
Good lord, this thread went from dumb to dumber...

One comment (not related to above statement)

Generally, wind speed scales with height (I can't remember the relation off the top of my head, I'll look for it later when I'm not falling asleep), so he is technically correct in saying the "tallness" is a factor, not to mention a taller tower would have a larger blade area.

But this ignores the added weight and cost. Minor details :rolleyes:

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the list...

Part Correction. The blade area will only ever so slightly be thicker,not so the sweep area..... Meaning the blade area will remain the same except if I scale up and out.

nathan
30th December 2010, 02:37 AM
You'd be far better off with a sail.

Y'know, in Scientific American's 50, 100 & 150 years ago there was a clip about someone patenting a ship that used a windmill to power a generator that then drove an electric motor driving a screw. The comment in the historic article could be paraphrased as 'wtf? use a sail'. Alas I cannot remember the issue, and knowing my memory is likely to be in the past 5 years.

nathan
30th December 2010, 02:41 AM
In 1934 the known Law of Pyschics according to entomologist August Magnan means all Bumblebees are permanently grounded until further notice.

Incorrect. The observation was that if you assume bumblebee wings are rigid, and ignore Reynolds number, then bumblebees can't fly. As they demonstrably do fly, the conclusion is your assumptions are faulty. It's that fluid dynamics thing again.

nathan
30th December 2010, 02:45 AM
Public or Private transport such as Coach Buses would be great for my wind motor/wind generator.
Then build one and prove it.

And Trains,the faster the train goes the more power produced. I don't know what happens to the excess power,maybe dump it in the Earth?

Then build one and find out.

nathan
30th December 2010, 02:46 AM
Even aeroplanes could run off my new wind motor/generator,yet it means going back to ''propellers'', no more fuel laden Jet Liners burning down towers.

Build one and prove it.

likelystory
30th December 2010, 03:04 AM
Y'know, in Scientific American's 50, 100 & 150 years ago there was a clip about someone patenting a ship that used a windmill to power a generator that then drove an electric motor driving a screw. The comment in the historic article could be paraphrased as 'wtf? use a sail'. Alas I cannot remember the issue, and knowing my memory is likely to be in the past 5 years.

You are some what out of date.My idea wasn't around then.

Think of three of four masts being VAWT's not HAWT''s.... A whopping difference.

excaza
30th December 2010, 04:31 AM
Part Correction. The blade area will only ever so slightly be thicker,not so the sweep area..... Meaning the blade area will remain the same except if I scale up and out.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? This is complete nonsense.

I said it's possible to power a car by ''wind''. Public or Private transport such as Coach Buses would be great for my wind motor/wind generator.
No, what you're proposing is a perpetual motion device. I've explained to you why this won't work.

likelystory
30th December 2010, 05:17 AM
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? This is complete nonsense.

No, what you're proposing is a perpetual motion device. I've explained to you why this won't work.

It will work,cause the fuel is always there. The Wind. It's a matter of harnessing the wind correctly.

excaza
30th December 2010, 05:19 AM
It will work,cause the fuel is always there. The Wind. It's a matter of harnessing the wind correctly.

So I'm guessing you didn't even remotely understand my explanation of why it won't work.

likelystory
30th December 2010, 05:21 AM
So I'm guessing you didn't even remotely understand my explanation of why it won't work.

My wind machine is different. It operates differently.

excaza
30th December 2010, 05:22 AM
I'll take that as a 'no, I didn't understand it'

ben m
30th December 2010, 05:34 AM
It will work,cause the fuel is always there. The Wind. It's a matter of harnessing the wind correctly.

Go explain this to your high-school science teacher. If your teacher thinks you are correct, ask the teacher to compose an explanation for you to post here.

Paulhoff
30th December 2010, 05:59 AM
I seen a Bumble Bee fly,yet so called knowledgble ones say the Law of Physics must be followed or you won't get funding for more blackboard chalk.

Additionally, John Maynard Smith a noted biologist with a strong background in aeronautics, has pointed out that bumblebees would not be expected to sustain flight, as they would need to generate too much power given their tiny wing area. However, in aerodynamics experiments with other insects he found that viscosity at the scale of small insects meant that even their small wings can move a very large volume of air relative to the size, and this reduces the power required to sustain flight by an order of magnitude.
Another description of a bee's wing function is that the wings work similarly to helicopter blades, "reverse-pitch semirotary helicopter blades".
Bees beat their wings approximately 200 times a second. Their thorax muscles do not expand and contract on each nerve firing, but rather vibrate like a plucked rubber band.

Unlike you UN-likelystory, science can change with new information.

Paul

:) :) :)

TjW
30th December 2010, 06:40 AM
Even aeroplanes could run off my new wind motor/generator,yet it means going back to ''propellers'', no more fuel laden Jet Liners burning down towers.

No. Wind turbines, sailboats, landsailers and iceboats all exploit a difference in velocity between two mediums to extract energy.
Airplanes are, by necessity, suspended in a single medium. There's no difference to exploit. As a long-time soaring pilot, I know exactly what it takes to keep an airplane in the air and go long distances without a motor. Wind driven turbines, of whatever axis, aren't on the list. The Caproni A21J has a nice kerosene driven turbine that works well, though.

Craig4
30th December 2010, 06:44 AM
Dude, have you even powered a single light bulb yet?

Hellbound
30th December 2010, 06:53 AM
It was not known.... So the claim of ''the known laws of physics'' is a lie... One cannot say ''it was known at the time'' and then say afterwards, it was really not known''........ To know is to KNOW, not claim something because one believes in it to be so from ones own hopeful speculation.... Scientists use speculation to sound intelligent.

Add reading comprehension to the list of things you fail at.

"known laws of physics"
The adjective "known" applies to the known "laws". The meaning is clear to anyone with functional brain cells: The laws as they are known.

"known that bumblebess can fly"
The adjective known applies to the phrase "bumblebees can fly". Again, the meaning is clear. It was known that bumblebees can fly.

It seems Dick and Jane will be required.

What I stated was:

1. The laws of physics as known at the time did not allow for bumblebee flight.
2. Observation showed that bumblebees did actually fly, which led scientists to conclude that science, as it was known at the time, was incomplete.
3. As others have posted, this led scientists to do additional research, which resolve the problem and discovered the specific properties that allow for bumblebee flight.

Even a child knew Bumble Bees could fly, no known (belief system) at the tme psuedo-law of physics required for that.

Which was exactly my point; you're conflating what was observed (bumblebees fly) with the models we use to explain reality (science). Reality doesn't change, but the models do. They are adapted to fit new information, to closer match to reality.

Your insistence that "scientists claimed bumblebees can't fly" is incorrect; they didn't understand, at the time, how bumblebees could fly.

The more I look into ''man's''science the cheaper it gets.

While 5 minutes is demonstrably "more" than 1 minute, I still believe you haven't looked enough. Correcting the misunderstandings of basic science you've displayed in this thread alone would produce enough material to fill a fairly good high-school level physics text.

Unlike you UN-likelystory, science can change with new information.

Paul

:) :) :)

And that seems to be another place where his comprehension fails.

excaza
30th December 2010, 06:55 AM
Correcting the misudnerstandings of basic science you've displayed in this thread alone would produce enough material to fill a fairly good high-school level physics text.
Which is why he should buy one.

Dinwar
30th December 2010, 08:29 AM
One comment (not related to above statement)

Generally, wind speed scales with height (I can't remember the relation off the top of my head, I'll look for it later when I'm not falling asleep), so he is technically correct in saying the "tallness" is a factor, not to mention a taller tower would have a larger blade area.

But this ignores the added weight and cost. Minor details

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the list... You are correct. My hydrology professor would be upset with me. Any moving fluid will move faster the further it is away from an interface. In rivers, there's a really neat and entirely-derived-from-observations book that tells you the ratios--a wide, rocky stream will have on ratio, a deep sandy stream will have another, etc. You look through the book, find a picture that looks sorta like your river, ish, and use that number. There's no reason the same theory wouldn't hold true for air. The higher you are in the air column the further you'd be from anything that can create drag, and the faster the wind would blow.

What I should have stated was that likelystory has not provided any data on this yet, and that the correlation between fluid speed and distance from any interface works for fluid flow parallel to the interface; while turbulance will generate some motion normal to that interface (and the viscosity of air is too low for the wind to be perfectly laminar) it will be a vanishingly small fraction of the speed parallel to the interface.

excaza
30th December 2010, 10:54 AM
There's no reason the same theory wouldn't hold true for air. The higher you are in the air column the further you'd be from anything that can create drag, and the faster the wind would blow.

Yep, the two most basic models, Power Law and Log Model, take into account a surface roughness value.

Power Law:
$V(z)=V(z_{ref})[z/z_{ref}]^\alpha$
where
$\alpha\approx 0.096log_{10}(z_o)+0.016(log_{10}{z_o})^2+0.24$

Log Model:
$V(z)=V(z_{ref})[\frac{ln(z/z_o)}{ln(z_{ref}/z_o)}]$

z = height of your turbine, zo = surface roughness value, and zref is some reference height (usually around 10 meters).

Some general values for zo are 0.20mm for calm open seas, 30.0mm for a fallow field, 500.00mm for a forest, and 3000mm for an urban city center.

likelystory
30th December 2010, 12:51 PM
Unlike you UN-likelystory, science can change with new information.

Paul

:) :) :)

I can see Bumble Bees fly with my own eyes.No scientist required.

Maybe I'll call my new VAWT. Bumble Bee because of it's short wing span. Or a classical name like Pirouet because it turns so elegantly. Or the Thing ;)

Dinwar
30th December 2010, 12:54 PM
Swing and a miss.....

likelystory
30th December 2010, 01:24 PM
No. Wind turbines, sailboats, landsailers and iceboats all exploit a difference in velocity between two mediums to extract energy.
Airplanes are, by necessity, suspended in a single medium. There's no difference to exploit. As a long-time soaring pilot, I know exactly what it takes to keep an airplane in the air and go long distances without a motor. Wind driven turbines, of whatever axis, aren't on the list. The Caproni A21J has a nice kerosene driven turbine that works well, though.

When you say ''airplane'', are you referring to a glider?

Dinwar
30th December 2010, 02:21 PM
When you say ''airplane'', are you referring to a glider? It doesn't matter, the results would be the same. You cannot get more power out of a system than goes in, and trying to use the forward momentum of a vehicle to drive turbines which power the vehicle would require more energy than you put in (particularly becuase your VAWT will be perpendicular to the path the vehicle is traveling).

30th December 2010, 03:01 PM
I said it's possible to power a car by ''wind''. Public or Private transport such as Coach Buses would be great for my wind motor/wind generator.

Someone (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41PBTK448BL.jpg) has beat you to this idea.

rwguinn
30th December 2010, 03:34 PM
Someone (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41PBTK448BL.jpg) has beat you to this idea.
That's what I was looking for!

Paulhoff
30th December 2010, 03:46 PM
I can see Bumble Bees fly with my own eyes.No scientist required.

Maybe I'll call my new VAWT. Bumble Bee because of it's short wing span. Or a classical name like Pirouet because it turns so elegantly. Or the Thing ;)
Seems you don't know what a Scientific Theory is and used for. A Scientific Theory is used to explain how something works and with knowing that it can than be use to produce new ideas on how to making new things and/or improve how things work.

Seeing a bee fly doesn’t tell you HOW it flies.

Daaaaaa.

Paul

:) :) :)

likelystory
30th December 2010, 03:57 PM
Someone (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41PBTK448BL.jpg) has beat you to this idea.

You really had me going,until I opened the link. lol.... Touche

likelystory
30th December 2010, 04:08 PM
Seems you don't know what a Scientific Theory is and used for. A Scientific Theory is used to explain how something works and with knowing that it can than be use to produce new ideas on how to making new things and/or improve how things work.

Seeing a bee fly doesn’t tell you HOW it flies.

Daaaaaa.

Paul

:) :) :)

Sure it does,it has wings to fly :)

My new wind motor/generator would work much better when a whole new shape of car comes into play. Though it could work on today's cars with some modifications.

30th December 2010, 04:14 PM
You really had me going,until I opened the link. lol.... Touche

Looks like you missed the point entirely. I'll spell it out for you, even if it ruins the humor. You appear to show as much knowledge of physics as does Wile E. Coyote. And I predict as much success for your VAWT venture as he has in catching the roadrunner. Probably less.

likelystory
30th December 2010, 04:31 PM
Looks like you missed the point entirely. I'll spell it out for you, even if it ruins the humor. You appear to show as much knowledge of physics as does Wile E. Coyote. And I predict as much success for your VAWT venture as he has in catching the roadrunner. Probably less.

your support has been noted

Paulhoff
30th December 2010, 04:39 PM
Sure it does,it has wings to fly :)

My new wind motor/generator would work much better when a whole new shape of car comes into play. Though it could work on today's cars with some modifications.
That just flew right over you head.

Poor kid.

Paul

:) :) :)

likelystory
30th December 2010, 07:19 PM
Would it be the end of daming rivers if my wind VAWT's are half of what I said about them?

excaza
30th December 2010, 07:28 PM
Well, the rivers would be free of half your BS, so they would flow a little better.

Dinwar
30th December 2010, 07:37 PM
Would it be the end of daming rivers if my wind VAWT's are half of I said about them? :bwall

Rivers in the Western United States at least were dammed to provide water to the communities in those states. The electricity is a byproduct--the main reason is to stockpile water. If you made a perpetual motion machine, which could never run out of fuel and gave everyone power for free, we would still dam rivers out west.

30th December 2010, 08:11 PM
Would it be the end of daming rivers if my wind VAWT's are half of I said about them?

Quit trying to shift discussion to irrelevant topics. First of all, prove that your VAWT theories are even remotely plausible. Then you can bring up the impact on rivers and elsewhere.

likelystory
30th December 2010, 08:35 PM
:bwall

Rivers in the Western United States at least were dammed to provide water to the communities in those states. The electricity is a byproduct--the main reason is to stockpile water. If you made a perpetual motion machine, which could never run out of fuel and gave everyone power for free, we would still dam rivers out west.

Was that water used for drinking purposes or was most of it for agriculture and Industries?

I thought the VAWT could be used to make masses of electricity for desalination operating plants.

30th December 2010, 08:39 PM
Was that water used for drinking purposes or was most of it for agriculture and Industries?

I thought the VAWT could be used to masses of electricity for desalination operating plants.

Irrelevant (not to mention, nonsensical) until you can show that your claims have any validity whatsoever.

Little 10 Toes
30th December 2010, 08:41 PM
And people thought that you have data to back up what is turning out to be wild speculation (at best).

Craig4
30th December 2010, 09:37 PM
How about building a scale model and powering a lightbulb or charging an ipod. We might be less dismissive of you if you built one of these things that actually worked.

likelystory
30th December 2010, 10:17 PM
How about building a scale model and powering a lightbulb or charging an ipod. We might be less dismissive of you if you built one of these things that actually worked.

I re-started work today on part of my new VAWT project, I can't get the copper wire or magnet wire I am after until next week. I was busy with the metal file about an hour ago....... I rested to watch a series of YouTube Videos called ''For the Love of Water''. I seen part 1 on the thread called Should this worry me?

30th December 2010, 10:27 PM
likelystory can provide no data to support his wild claims in this thread. That is the reason for 10 pages of his basically pushing nonsense, and why he is trying to shift the discussion to implausible implications of his "discovery" and is now trying to shift attention to various unrelated youtube videos. (Or possibly he's just easily distracted. :D)

Craig4
30th December 2010, 10:32 PM
I re-started work today on part of my new VAWT project, I can't get the copper wire or magnet wire I am after until next week. I was busy with the metal file about an hour ago....... I rested to watch a series of YouTube Videos called ''For the Love of Water''. I seen part 1 on the thread called Should this worry me?

While Youtube can be entertaining (I love a good potato cannon video as much as the next guy) perhaps basing your world view on it isn't such a good idea.

nathan
31st December 2010, 02:37 AM
Think of three of four masts being VAWT's not HAWT''s.... A whopping difference.

build one and prove it.

nathan
31st December 2010, 02:39 AM
My wind machine is differentnon existent. It operates differentlyin my imagination.

go on, build one, and then you'll prove it.

nathan
31st December 2010, 02:42 AM
Maybe I'll call my new VAWT. Bumble Bee because of it's short wing span. Or a classical name like Pirouet because it turns so elegantly. Or the Thing ;)

Yay! progress, we have a name for this fantastical idea. That's the final missing piece blocking construction!

likelystory
31st December 2010, 05:30 AM
go on, build one, and then you'll prove it.

Physics have proven it's own worth. Building comes second ;)

Paulhoff
31st December 2010, 06:36 AM
Physics have proven it's own worth. Building comes second ;)
Building is primary, seems you still don't know science. Without real testing there is no science.

Paul

:) :) :)

nathan
31st December 2010, 07:24 AM
Physics have proven it's own worth. Building comes second ;)

Trouble for you is that physics says you're, um, misguided. Hence you need to provide physical evidence of your idea.

Hellbound
31st December 2010, 09:03 AM
Would it be the end of daming rivers if my wind VAWT's are half of what I said about them?

If half your claims are true, I wouldn't be worried about the rivers. Because we'd be busy re-writing most of physics from the ground up.

Since you can't seem to understand the more technical/logical arguments, let me ask you this:

If you set up one of your generators, and used the output to power a large, variable speed fan, then turned that fan toward the VAWT to produce wind, would such a setup work (assuming you have a small external current you can use to start the fan initially, after which it's turned off).

likelystory
31st December 2010, 05:06 PM
:):):) happy new year :):):)

likelystory
31st December 2010, 05:25 PM
If half your claims are true, I wouldn't be worried about the rivers. Because we'd be busy re-writing most of physics from the ground up.

Since you can't seem to understand the more technical/logical arguments, let me ask you this:

If you set up one of your generators, and used the output to power a large, variable speed fan, then turned that fan toward the VAWT to produce wind, would such a setup work (assuming you have a small external current you can use to start the fan initially, after which it's turned off).

I'm not claiming a perpetual motion thing-a-ma-jig. Yet I known how the wind can be exploited to power machines.

I don't need a fan..... My new VAWTEX may be able to create a wind current from the shape of clusters... See what happens ;)

TjW
31st December 2010, 05:50 PM
I'm not claiming a perpetual motion thing-a-ma-jig. Yet I know how the wind can be exploited to power machines.

Really?
How much kinetic energy is in a 1 meter cube of air traveling 5 m/s? That will be the same regardless of how it is extracted.

likelystory
31st December 2010, 06:09 PM
Really?
How much kinetic energy is in a 1 meter cube of air traveling 5 m/s? That will be the same regardless of how it is extracted.

No.Not when the machine is made to certain specifications.

rwguinn
31st December 2010, 06:19 PM
No.Not when the machine is made to certain specifications.
That is the definition of a perpetual motion thing-a-ma-jig

Energy out >= Energy available.
Efficiency 1 or greater
Over unity
Conservation of energy. It's not just a good idea, It's the LAW!

likelystory
31st December 2010, 06:37 PM
That is the definition of a

[/B]Energy out >= Energy available.
Efficiency 1 or greater
Over unity
Conservation of energy. It's not just a good idea, It's the LAW!

I don't adhere to the LAW made from man's idea's. What the LAW of the creation of the universe according to mainstream scientists? Oh the LAW breaks down!!!

And here's another beauty for you. Energy is never created or destroyed ''except for the creation of the universe''..... Hey I thought the LAW (Scientists) said matter can't be created....... Don't tell me about the LAW pleaze :)

Little 10 Toes
31st December 2010, 06:40 PM
I don't adhere to the LAW made from man's idea's. What the LAW of the creation of the universe according to mainstream scientists? Oh the LAW breaks down!!!

And here's another beauty for you. Energy is never created or destroyed ''except for the creation of the universe''..... Hey I thought the LAW (Scientists) said matter can't be created....... Don't tell me about the LAW pleaze :)

It's not made from man's ideas, it's made from observations and experiments (generally speaking). Please quote this "Law of Creation" and give cites.

rwguinn
31st December 2010, 07:01 PM
I don't adhere to the LAW made from man's idea's. What the LAW of the creation of the universe according to mainstream scientists? Oh the LAW breaks down!!!

And here's another beauty for you. Energy is never created or destroyed ''except for the creation of the universe''..... Hey I thought the LAW (Scientists) said matter can't be created....... Don't tell me about the LAW pleaze :)
:jaw::id:

31st December 2010, 07:27 PM
I don't adhere to the LAW made from man's idea's. What the LAW of the creation of the universe according to mainstream scientists? Oh the LAW breaks down!!!

And here's another beauty for you. Energy is never created or destroyed ''except for the creation of the universe''..... Hey I thought the LAW (Scientists) said matter can't be created....... Don't tell me about the LAW pleaze :)

You've lost it completely, and demonstrated that you never had even the foggiest idea of the science you were pretending to talk about.

Were you trolling this thread all along, just as you trolled the Apollo thread? Hope you had your fun.

Happy new year to you. :)

jsfisher
31st December 2010, 08:35 PM
Really?
How much kinetic energy is in a 1 meter cube of air traveling 5 m/s? That will be the same regardless of how it is extracted.

Oooh, oooh! I know. Ask me! Ask me!

Ahem,

Kinetic energy, K = 0.5 m v^2
Air is approximately 1.3 kg/m^3 at sea level. So,
K = 0.5*1.3*5*5 J = 16.25 J. (Joules!! It even sounds huge.)

With the air moving at 5 m/s, that yields 5*16.25 J/s = 81.25 J/s. Since 1 J/s = 1 watt, that's roughly 80 watts.

Did I do that right?

And you thought it would be a problem for just a couple of the uber-VAWTs to generate a terawatt, didn't you?

Dinwar
31st December 2010, 09:13 PM
I don't adhere to the LAW made from man's idea's.So you're completely ignorant of how science works, and of physics, as well as of engineering. Color me surprised. :rolleyes:

What the LAW of the creation of the universe according to mainstream scientists? Oh the LAW breaks down!!!First off, no pseudoscientist has contributed ANYTHING constructive to the debate on the Big Bang. Until you do, you don't get to claim that the BB supports your ideas. Second off, even if this statement is true (from my understanding, it's not, we just don't know the laws that were in effect back then) it says nothing about building a wind turbine here and now. Response to local conditions and all.

Don't tell me about the LAW pleaze Fair enough. Shall I tell you about your continued refusal--in ten pages of text--to provide any useful data on your machine? Shall I tell you about your complete inability to deal with the structural requirements of your machine? Shall I tell you about the complete lack of any even scale models?

Even without getting science-heavy there's enough reasons to dismiss you as a crackpot.

Craig4
31st December 2010, 11:29 PM
I don't adhere to the LAW made from man's idea's. What the LAW of the creation of the universe according to mainstream scientists? Oh the LAW breaks down!!!

And here's another beauty for you. Energy is never created or destroyed ''except for the creation of the universe''..... Hey I thought the LAW (Scientists) said matter can't be created....... Don't tell me about the LAW pleaze :)

Okay given your somewhat shaky understand of Conservation of Matter, the Laws of Motion and physics in general, I'm going to suggest you sort of steer clear of the Big Bang. This one won't end well for you. You could though read (or listen to it's available on Audible.com) "The Grand Design". It's Stephen Hawking's new book. It will clear up some misunderstandings you have about the origins of the Universe.

likelystory
1st January 2011, 12:14 AM
Oooh, oooh! I know. Ask me! Ask me!

Ahem,

Kinetic energy, K = 0.5 m v^2
Air is approximately 1.3 kg/m^3 at sea level. So,
K = 0.5*1.3*5*5 J = 16.25 J. (Joules!! It even sounds huge.)

With the air moving at 5 m/s, that yields 5*16.25 J/s = 81.25 J/s. Since 1 J/s = 1 watt, that's roughly 80 watts.

Did I do that right?

And you thought it would be a problem for just a couple of the uber-VAWTs to generate a terawatt, didn't you?

So if my VAWT is 100 feet tall.How many watts will it produce?

Craig4
1st January 2011, 12:21 AM
So if my VAWT is 100 feet tall.How many watts will it produce?

How fast are you assuming the air is going to be moving?

likelystory
1st January 2011, 12:23 AM
How fast are you assuming the air is going to be moving?

It varies. Say 12 mile.

excaza
1st January 2011, 12:36 AM
why are we doing your work for you?

Craig4
1st January 2011, 12:42 AM
Using the formula Jsfisher used I'd say about 130 watts but I bet there are better math people here than me.

You mention a very serious problem here too. The wind varies. If I need more power how do I get the wind to blow harder?

likelystory
1st January 2011, 01:03 AM
Using the formula Jsfisher used I'd say about 130 watts but I bet there are better math people here than me.

You mention a very serious problem here too. The wind varies. If I need more power how do I get the wind to blow harder?

That's why I would expect Governments or big businesses to have a few new VAWT's for when the wind slows down or stops altogether.Ideally it's to have clusters of wind machines throughout the regions.

Put them up on skyscrapers,water towers,stadiums, where ever there's Urban areas.

Craig4
1st January 2011, 02:26 AM
Oooooooooooookay. I may regret this but how will building more VAWT's help if the wind stops all together? No wind no wind power. That's just more wind turbines not doing anything. What might make wind viable is if someone could come up with better ways to store the excess energy created in low demand high wind periods.

nathan
1st January 2011, 03:32 AM
No.Not when the machine is made to certain specifications.

What machine? How is that related to the air's kinetic energy?

nathan
1st January 2011, 03:35 AM
So if my VAWT is 100 feet tall.How many watts will it produce?

Given you're incapable of calculating it, I guess you'll have to build one and find out.

Mashuna
1st January 2011, 03:47 AM
If likelystory builds something 100 feet tall, calculate how much damage it will cause following its inevitable and rapid collapse.

Craig4
1st January 2011, 03:57 AM
If likelystory builds something 100 feet tall, calculate how much damage it will cause following its inevitable and rapid collapse.

He does know you have to get permits for that sort of thing most places right?

nathan
1st January 2011, 04:07 AM
He does know you have to get permits for that sort of thing most places right?

Aw, that was the only thing stopping him building one ...

TjW
1st January 2011, 08:32 AM
So if my VAWT is 100 feet tall.How many watts will it produce?

How many roads must a man walk down?

rwguinn
1st January 2011, 08:37 AM
How many roads must a man walk down?
Forty-two (42)

Little 10 Toes
1st January 2011, 08:51 AM
Weight of a single said unit that will be " ... on skyscrapers,water towers,stadiums, where ever there's Urban areas."

Craig4
1st January 2011, 08:53 AM
Forty-two (42)

I was totally going to say that.

excaza
1st January 2011, 08:53 AM
Weight of a single said unit that will be " ... on skyscrapers,water towers,stadiums, where ever there's Urban areas."

I'd be more concerned with cost

Dinwar
1st January 2011, 02:10 PM
No.Not when the machine is made to certain specifications. It's been over ten pages. If you had any understanding of the specifications necessary to construct such a device, you would have given them by now.

likelystory
1st January 2011, 04:49 PM
It's been over ten pages. If you had any understanding of the specifications necessary to construct such a device, you would have given them by now.

My method is different to the standard wind turbines.

Dinwar
1st January 2011, 05:03 PM
That is not data. That is a comparison, and is therefore useless in this discussion. It's been over ten pages: Can you provide actual data, or not?

likelystory
1st January 2011, 05:13 PM
That is not data. That is a comparison, and is therefore useless in this discussion. It's been over ten pages: Can you provide actual data, or not?

Haven't I already been providing data without disclosing how it exactly works?

rwguinn
1st January 2011, 05:16 PM
Haven't I already been providing data without disclosing how it exactly works?

um. No.
Good thread at Christmas, though. I'm looking for the turkey.I haven't seen so much... stuff ... since Thanksgiving

excaza
1st January 2011, 06:03 PM
Haven't I already been providing data without disclosing how it exactly works?

Could you at least try to be as entertaining as you were a week or so ago? You're slipping.

Dinwar
1st January 2011, 06:03 PM
What rwguinn said. You have provided absolutely no data on how your device works.

1st January 2011, 08:25 PM
Haven't I already been providing data without disclosing how it exactly works?

No. You've provided wild conjecture, inane ideas and unlikely suppositions. No solid data at all that can be evaluated objectively.

You obviously have no data to share, so why don't you come clean and admit it's all a daydream you had while looking at wind turbines?

jsfisher
1st January 2011, 08:36 PM
likelystory,

I noticed you showed an interest in rare earth magnets for your generator. Would you be interested in magnets 10x more powerful? What benefit would it provide to your VAWT design?

likelystory
1st January 2011, 09:25 PM
likelystory,

I noticed you showed an interest in rare earth magnets for your generator. Would you be interested in magnets 10x more powerful? What benefit would it provide to your VAWT design?

Is this the man who knows of ''4 other ways'' to make magnets Ten Times more powerful than the Neodymium Magnets? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOC-1X61bC0&feature=related

ben m
1st January 2011, 09:37 PM
Haven't I already been providing data without disclosing how it exactly works?

Nope. In fact, you've proven that you have done no engineering analysis whatsoever.

Why? There is no equation anywhere in physics, engineering, aerodynamics, power, motor/generator/gearbox design, that allows for the possibility of violating conservation of energy. Actually using those equations means conserving energy.

The only people who think they can violate C of E are the ones who are (a) only guessing how their machine will work, or (b) misusing the engineering equations. Likelystory, thanks for clarifying your membership in that sad club.

jsfisher
1st January 2011, 10:07 PM
Is this the man who knows of ''4 other ways'' to make magnets Ten Times more powerful than the Neodymium Magnets? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOC-1X61bC0&feature=related

Nope, now please stop dodging the question.

likelystory
1st January 2011, 11:01 PM
Nope, now please stop dodging the question.

And what was your question again? Are you trying to hurry me up?

jsfisher
1st January 2011, 11:08 PM
And what was your question again? Are you trying to hurry me up?

It was the same question, well, two actually, you quoted a couple of posts back:
likelystory,

I noticed you showed an interest in rare earth magnets for your generator. Would you be interested in magnets 10x more powerful? What benefit would it provide to your VAWT design?

likelystory
1st January 2011, 11:22 PM
It was the same question, well, two actually, you quoted a couple of posts back:

Probably

likelystory
1st January 2011, 11:29 PM
It's the ferrite permanent magnets that would serve best due to their cheaper cost and availibility through many suppliers.

China can dictate it's high price for NIB........ Besides China couldn't produce enough tonnage per annum for a world wide conversion to new VAWT power.

If it's all cracked up to what it's worth,then every country will want the technology,and so that means ''tens of millions'' of new VAWT's to be produced..... little household VAWT'S to business hungry giants and utility services such as street lighting

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 12:20 AM
You still can't get more power out of the wind than is in the wind, no matter how good the magnet is.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 12:24 AM
You still can't get more power out of the wind than is in the wind, no matter how good the magnet is.

Not true. One gets more power out of the type of magnet because of the wind.

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 12:28 AM
No, (and I know I'm simplifying here but it seems necessary) if there's 130 watts in the wind you will never get more that 130 watts of energy from the turbine. Conservation of Energy, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 12:38 AM
No, (and I know I'm simplifying here but it seems necessary) if there's 130 watts in the wind you will never get more that 130 watts of energy from the turbine. Conservation of Energy, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

that's the key word ''if''... Now where do you get 130 watts from,who's style of turbine are you referring to?

jsfisher
2nd January 2011, 12:46 AM
that's the key word ''if''... Now where do you get 130 watts from,who's style of turbine are you referring to?

The 130 watts is the power provided by the wind. It doesn't matter what style blades or turbine or magnets or bearings you incorporate in your VAWT, its power output will not exceed the power the wind provides.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 12:50 AM
The 130 watts is the power provided by the wind. It doesn't matter what style blades or turbine or magnets or bearings you incorporate in your VAWT, its power output will not exceed the power the wind provides.

Does a 2 mile wind produce the same as a 4 mile wind?

jsfisher
2nd January 2011, 01:09 AM
Does a 2 mile wind produce the same as a 4 mile wind?

What has that to do with better magnets getting you more power? You seem to have trouble staying focussed.

If you have been paying attention, you should be able to calculate for yourself the energy and/or power the wind would provide under whatever conditions you like.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 01:12 AM
What has that to do with better magnets getting you more power? You seem to have trouble staying focussed.

If you have been paying attention, you should be able to calculate for yourself the energy and/or power the wind would provide under whatever conditions you like.

The more powerful the magnet the more power produced.

jsfisher
2nd January 2011, 01:29 AM
The more powerful the magnet the more power produced.

No.

tsig
2nd January 2011, 01:37 AM
The people obviously don't know about VAWT's. I seen a video with two VAWT's close together in one metal framework.

Trucks powered by wind? Have you been trying to read my mind?

Wind can power cars indefinetly. If you eventually see the ''inside'' of my new VAWT, then you realize how to powe Motor Bikes,Cars,Trains and Trucks on WIND POWER.... No more for digging for Oil

Yes

I want a complete working machine.

I am not playing games.This stuff is all real and workable. Because you are able to build stuff (I watched your home made Videos), you will wonder why no one ever thought of such a simplistic idea before. Even Tesla would be wondering ''how simple''.

For the car,the wind motor/generator would work far better with Neodymium Magnets

I almost want to give my two inventions for free,because I'm sick of wacthing the Earth being ruined throuh bad practices from the Oil Companies. There's a place in Canada where certain Bears called ''Spirit Bears'' would be in danger of becoming extinct as a direct result of Oil Companies wanting that Coastal area to pipeline oil to Oil Tankers.

One major oil spil in the Forrest or and on the Coast spells DISATER for the Bears

Too late on your wind powered vehicle.

http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 01:47 AM
that's the key word ''if''... Now where do you get 130 watts from,who's style of turbine are you referring to?

It doesn't matter what style of turbine you're using. If there are 130 watts of energy in the wind then the most you can get out of a wind turbine is 130 watts.

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 01:51 AM
Does a 2 mile wind produce the same as a 4 mile wind?

Heavy sigh. The 130 is a hypothetical because we need a number to make the discussion meaningful.

So, we go out to our turbine, and we measure the wind speed. We determine that based on our elevation, and the speed of the wind that there are 130 watts of power in the wind. That's the upward limit of your turbine. You can't get more energy from the wind than there is in the wind.

Mashuna
2nd January 2011, 03:15 AM
that's the key word ''if''... Now where do you get 130 watts from,who's style of turbine are you referring to?

That's like me saying I can bench press 250lbs, and you asking where I got that figure from, and am I taking into account what type of weight I'm lifting.

The 130 watts is an example figure, the style of turbine doesn't matter, whether it's a currently existing one or one of your made-up magic turbines.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 04:23 AM
That's like me saying I can bench press 250lbs, and you asking where I got that figure from, and am I taking into account what type of weight I'm lifting.

The 130 watts is an example figure, the style of turbine doesn't matter, whether it's a currently existing one or one of your made-up magic turbines.

Since when have all turbines been the same producers of power?

Mashuna
2nd January 2011, 04:26 AM
Since when have all turbines been the same producers of power?

Your ability to miss the point is uncanny. There must be some way to extract energy from this skill you have.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 04:28 AM
Your ability to miss the point is uncanny. There must be some way to extract energy from this skill you have.

Has the best turbine already been built? Or is it yet to come?

Mashuna
2nd January 2011, 05:55 AM
Has the best turbine already been built? Or is it yet to come?

The point, she is behind and above you.

Unless you're building a magic perpetual motion machine turbine, it doesn't matter.

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 06:03 AM
Since when have all turbines been the same producers of power?

It's not the turbine it's the amount of energy in the wind. You can't get more energy from the wind than there is in the wind. Your magnet doesn't matter, your turbine design doesn't matter, your altitude doesn't matter. There is a finite amount of energy in the wind. There is nothing you can do to get more energy from the wind than there is in the wind. Please do not embarrass yourself by saying you've made a wind turbine that can get more energy from the wind than there is in the wind. It's not possible. Can't be done.

You can extract as much as possible from the wind, you can make your system more efficient but there's nothing you can do to make a wind turbine generate more pay than is in the wind. Nothing.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 07:20 AM
It's not the turbine it's the amount of energy in the wind. You can't get more energy from the wind than there is in the wind. Your magnet doesn't matter, your turbine design doesn't matter, your altitude doesn't matter. There is a finite amount of energy in the wind. There is nothing you can do to get more energy from the wind than there is in the wind. Please do not embarrass yourself by saying you've made a wind turbine that can get more energy from the wind than there is in the wind. It's not possible. Can't be done.

You can extract as much as possible from the wind, you can make your system more efficient but there's nothing you can do to make a wind turbine generate more pay than is in the wind. Nothing.

So tell how many watts my hundred foot turbine will produce at 12 mph...

TheRedWorm
2nd January 2011, 07:34 AM
So tell how many watts my hundred foot turbine will produce at 12 mph...

Less that the wattage of the wind.

nathan
2nd January 2011, 07:37 AM
So tell how many watts my hundred foot turbine will produce at 12 mph...

3.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 07:46 AM
You don't know how much yet you try to put a cap on the potential amount.

I say the VAWT will produce more than 18 mw per 200 foot tower.

TjW
2nd January 2011, 08:21 AM
So tell how many watts my hundred foot turbine will produce at 12 mph...

As many as the seas a white dove must sail before she can sleep in the sand. Which, curiously, seems to be equal to the number of times the cannonballs fly, before they're forever banned.

jsfisher
2nd January 2011, 08:37 AM
You don't know how much yet you try to put a cap on the potential amount.

I say the VAWT will produce more than 18 mw per 200 foot tower.

...and yet you can't calculate -- or even correctly estimate -- the energy content of the wind passing through your VAWT.

So, your VAWT sitting atop this 200' tower, what are the height and width for the blade assembly and what wind speed would be required for your 18 MW of generated power?

TheRedWorm
2nd January 2011, 08:40 AM
You don't know how much yet you try to put a cap on the potential amount.

I say the VAWT will produce more than 18 mw per 200 foot tower.

18 miliwatts.....That would be enough to power, what? A wristwatch?

nathan
2nd January 2011, 08:59 AM
18 miliwatts.....That would be enough to power, what? A wristwatch?

several thousand watches -- but the jump leads are going to be a pain.

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 09:39 AM
You don't know how much yet you try to put a cap on the potential amount.

I say the VAWT will produce more than 18 mw per 200 foot tower.

How did you reach that conclusion? Also understand if there aren't 18 mw worth of energy in the wind you can't get 10 18mw ever.

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 09:41 AM
You don't know how much yet you try to put a cap on the potential amount.

I say the VAWT will produce more than 18 mw per 200 foot tower.

Your cap is the energy in the wind and there's nothing you can ever do to change that.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 09:43 AM
Your cap is the energy in the wind and there's nothing you can ever do to change that.

Then tell what my 200 foot VAWT can produce. What is the energy in the Wind?

TjW
2nd January 2011, 09:45 AM
No. What is on second.

jsfisher
2nd January 2011, 09:50 AM
Then tell what my 200 foot VAWT can produce. What is the energy in the Wind?

You'd need to answer my most recent questions to you, first. (Any you are a big boy or girl now, so you don't need me to repeat them for you.)

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 09:52 AM
No. What is on second.

?.

Dinwar
2nd January 2011, 09:55 AM
Then tell what my 200 foot VAWT can produce. What is the energy in the Wind? This, along with the method for calculating it, has already been provided. It would be trivial to answer this yourself. We do not need to do your work for you.

Then tell what my 200 foot VAWT can produce. What is the energy in the Wind? There is only so much power in the wind. That is your cap. Nothing you can do--no magnets, no tricky designs, NOTHING--will get you more energy out of the wind than the wind has. Maybe if you weren't so dismissive of that thar book learnen you would have already come across this.

By the way: You still haven't given any data on your design. Are you unwilling, or incapable?

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 09:56 AM
Then tell what my 200 foot VAWT can produce. What is the energy in the Wind?

Please tell me you didn't really ask that question. It changes. You can't predict over time how much energy is in the wind. If it's blowing faster you get more, if it's blowing slowly you get less. If there's no wind at all you get none.

The point to remember is that based on the speed of the wind, that's the limit. If there's 18 mw or 1 mw in the wind at that point in time that's all you can ever get.

Mashuna
2nd January 2011, 10:02 AM
Please tell me you didn't really ask that question. It changes. You can't predict over time how much energy is in the wind. If it's blowing faster you get more, if it's blowing slowly you get less. If there's no wind at all you get none.

The point to remember is that based on the speed of the wind, that's the limit. If there's 18 mw or 1 mw in the wind at that point in time that's all you can ever get.

If a cow gives 2 pints of milk per day, can a super-effective milking machine get 5 pints out of that cow?

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 10:10 AM
If a cow gives 2 pints of milk per day, can a super-effective milking machine get 5 pints out of that cow?

The current machines are only getting half a pint out of a potential gallon.

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 10:10 AM
If a cow gives 2 pints of milk per day, can a super-effective milking machine get 5 pints out of that cow?

Thank you. That's a far more effective example than I was coming up with. Of course I doubt it will do much good.

Dinwar
2nd January 2011, 10:12 AM
The current machines are only getting half a pint out of a potential gallon. Please show your math.

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 10:17 AM
Although based on LS's last post he seems to understand you can't get more energy out of the wind than is in the wind now. That's a small victory.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 10:25 AM

I have to patent it first which is about two months away from application.... Tonight I went into town and the waterfront with part of my VAWT ''blades and axle only'' hand held for experimental purposes and I was being followed by some people in a car.

I don't know if they were curious or something else other than curious? Besides people were looking at my part contraption blades spinning rather fast as I rode on my bicycle. lol

Dinwar
2nd January 2011, 10:37 AM
I have to patent it first which is about two months away from application....No. You don't. I was asking you to show your math demonstrating that EXISTING technology is getting less 1/4 of the energy out of the wind. This has nothing to do with the patent office, or with your design.

jsfisher
2nd January 2011, 10:44 AM
I have to patent it first which is about two months away from application.... Tonight I went into town and the waterfront with part of my VAWT ''blades and axle only'' hand held for experimental purposes and I was being followed by some people in a car.

I don't know if they were curious or something else other than curious? Besides people were looking at my part contraption blades spinning rather fast as I rode on my bicycle. lol

So, what you are saying is there may a legitimate reason you haven't taken high school science or math.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 10:44 AM
No. You don't. I was asking you to show your math demonstrating that EXISTING technology is getting less 1/4 of the energy out of the wind. This has nothing to do with the patent office, or with your design.

I measured it by sight. That's where the idea sprung from. I know how to measure roughly by buckets.

Dinwar
2nd January 2011, 10:46 AM
I measured it by sight.And your eyes are better than the precision instruments people use to calculate precisely how much energy these things produce and the exact optimal conditions for their operation?

Sorry, but I'm skeptical.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 10:48 AM
So, what you are saying is there may a legitimate reason you haven't taken high school science or math.

That's what you are implying :)

rwguinn
2nd January 2011, 10:48 AM
And your eyes are better than the precision instruments people use to calculate precisely how much energy these things produce and the exact optimal conditions for their operation?

Sorry, but I'm skeptical.
Now that's a likely story.
(I'll get my hat and coat...)

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 10:53 AM
And your eyes are better than the precision instruments people use to calculate precisely how much energy these things produce and the exact optimal conditions for their operation?

Sorry, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not over interested about precision, precision is for extracting the last drop of oil. I'm interested in SURPLUS on a huge scale. I saw why the wind industry was stagnant because of the limited knowledge of how to harness the winds ''total power''.........

excaza
2nd January 2011, 10:55 AM
I'm not sure you can talk about the wind's "total power" when you can't even calculate it. It's a very simple calculation, and one that has been provided in this thread already.

likelystory
2nd January 2011, 11:06 AM
I'm not sure you can talk about the wind's "total power" when you can't even calculate it. It's a very simple calculation, and one that has been provided in this thread already.

Yet I have calculated the lacking. Your learning is what? Up to date.

I am not a classroom genius, yet how does that inhibit my observations?

Inventions aren't taught,they are improved.

TjW
2nd January 2011, 11:06 AM
?.

No. He's on third, we're not talking about him.

Craig4
2nd January 2011, 11:07 AM
I'm not over interested about precision, precision is for extracting the last drop of oil. I'm interested in SURPLUS on a huge scale. I saw why the wind industry was stagnant because of the limited knowledge of how to harness the winds ''total power''.........

I think you'd be better of studying physics for a while. Your heart's in the right place but to get where you want to be is going to require A LOT of self discipline study and some really hard work.

Dinwar
2nd January 2011, 11:07 AM
I'm not over interested about precision, precision is for extracting the last drop of oil. I'm interested in SURPLUS on a huge scale. I saw why the wind industry was stagnant because of the limited knowledge of how to harness the winds ''total power''......... You missed my point entirely, and I'm inclined to assume it's intentional. My point, to make it perfectly clear, is that I don't believe you can evaluate the energy potential of the wind or the energy extraction from modern turbines better with your unaided eye than engineers and scientists can with their instruments. You have not demonstrated any surplus, huge or otherwise. You being completely ignorant of the situation and making unwarranted and unsupportable assumptions can explain your reaction and everything you've said on this thread. The fact that you believe that you can eyeball the situation, the fact that you are dismissive of actual knowledge of the system ("Too much studying gets in the way of actually making things", to paraphrase your statement), the fact that you don't understand basic principles of energy, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, etc., all point to this.

Give us some reason to think you may be on to something. It's been over ten pages now, and you haven't.

Now that's a likely story.
(I'll get my hat and coat...) Badump bump ts. :D

Dinwar
2nd January 2011, 11:09 AM
I am not a classroom genius, yet how does that inhibit my observations?Because you don't know the theories by which the concepts you're dealing with can be measured and manipulated.

Inventions aren't taught,they are improved. True, but only after one has gained a deep understanding of the theory behind the invention. Otherwise it's just random tinkering.

excaza
2nd January 2011, 11:11 AM
Yet I have calculated the lacking.

You haven't calculated anything. You've made a bunch of completely unsupported assertions. Assertion isn't calculation.