New VAWT

[likelystory]

This thread is not designed to boast about an idea I have of revoloutionary Wind Technology,but rather to state in advance of secret things that I knew prior.

Here's a video showing many ''other'' people's ideas of their wind technology... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEPDkMN71XA

My vast improvement of Wind Technology could meet the Earth's demand for power consumption,The Tech would be so useful to fuel Desalination Plants and purifying drinking water,for heating and cooking and cooling systems. (This seems to sit in my gut fairly well)

I could bring out similar Tech to fuel cars, but how many people are directly affected by New Tech?How many people would loose thier Jobs as a direct result of New Tech or vastly improved Tech. Majority of people don't agree with Oil companies because of their slash and burn policies,but how many people have become Oil Company dependent ?

Does New Tech really produce new jobs for the young only and so throw the Older generation onto the scrap heap? So here I am forecasting my wind machine devices. Should I bring them out to counter the Oil Companies ''couldn't give a care attitude''? I'm not really asking for anyone's approval,I felt like letting people know that the Earth doesn't need to be Oil Dependent.

[casebro]

Yeah, sure.

[A Laughing Baby]

Go for it. World's ending in 2012 anyway, so just really let it all hang out, you know?

[madurobob]

Ummmm

This thread is not designed to boast about an idea I have of revoloutionary Wind Technology...

Vs.


My vast improvement of Wind Technology could meet the Earth's demand for power consumption

And

The Tech would be so useful to fuel Desalination Plants and purifying drinking water,for heating and cooking and cooling systems. (This seems to sit in my gut fairly well)

And

I could bring out similar Tech to fuel cars...

Not that its wrong, but it does smell a bit like boasting.

I felt like letting people know that the Earth doesn't need to be Oil Dependent.

Oh, hey, thanks!

[casebro]

Boasting I could handle, if backed up by actual performance. But he seems to hinting that he has a new approach that will make a leap forward in efficiency of several quantum steps.

I suggest he save the boasting until he can show us the megawatt out put. Which probably won't happen until he comes down.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How come the nuts always come here and spend so much time telling us how great and revolutionary their inventions are instead of, oh I don't know, actually spending that time building and selling their inventions?

[likelystory]

How come the nuts always come here and spend so much time telling us how great and revolutionary their inventions are instead of, oh I don't know, actually spending that time building and selling their inventions?

Excuse me Sir,I am the exceptional nut. I have been building it and then I dismantled it and then sawed it up,yet I held on to some parts for future testing. I have the patent paperwork,it's a matter of me improving my drawing skills,then I can have the patent pending.

[Dr. Keith]

Excuse me Sir,I am the exceptional nut. I have been building it and then I dismantled it and then sawed it up,yet I held on to some parts for future testing. I have the patent paperwork,it's a matter of me improving my drawing skills,then I can have the patent pending.

Hire a draftsman.

[ben m]

My vast improvement of Wind Technology could meet the Earth's demand for power consumption,

Have you actually invented a vast improvement of wind technology?

Do you have a numerical calculation of how much power your device would generate (in megawatts) under some nominal wind condition?

Do you have an engineering estimate of the cost per unit of this device?

Has a licensed professional engineer signed off on the above calculations? (And "I mentioned it to my mates down the pub, one of whom is a repairman, and they all said it sounded good" doesn't count.) If not, who is the most-highly-educated technical expert who has checked your power calculation? How about your cost estimate?

Does your idea involve high-altitude kites and/or the jet stream? 'Cause I've seen half a dozen glossy vaporware versions of that idea and exactly zero prototypes.

[madurobob]

Excuse me Sir,I am the exceptional nut. I have been building it and then I dismantled it and then sawed it up,yet I held on to some parts for future testing. I have the patent paperwork,it's a matter of me improving my drawing skills,then I can have the patent pending.

So, you had a working model. Something that could easily be transformed into marketing collateral for gathering up a few investors. With investor backing you could easily patent, manufacture and distribute this wonderful new technology, saving the earth countless billions in energy research, oil drilling and exploration and cleaning up after the mess burning oil leaves behind, not to mention the countless human lives saved. And, you "sawed it up".

Brilliant.

[Dinwar]

Excuse me Sir,I am the exceptional nut. I have been building it and then I dismantled it and then sawed it up,yet I held on to some parts for future testing. I have the patent paperwork,it's a matter of me improving my drawing skills,then I can have the patent pending. Patents don't prove that the tech is viable, only that it's new.

Wind power will not, and CAN not, become the dominant form of energy for consumer consuption. Simply put, the wind is too variable to make it work. Even if you could make a wind farm out of 100% efficient turbines (violating the second law of thermodynamics, I might add) it would only ever serve as a supliment to other, more stable, energy forms. The issue is that during peek usage power companies need to be able to increase their output, and VERY quickly, while power generated during usage lulls is generally wasted power. The storage facilities for any excess power are 1) very large and 2) very inefficient. So at best you use wind power when it works, but you don't relie on it.

I could bring out similar Tech to fuel cars, but how many people are directly affected by New Tech?How many people would loose thier Jobs as a direct result of New Tech or vastly improved Tech. Majority of people don't agree with Oil companies because of their slash and burn policies,but how many people have become Oil Company dependent ?
It's so nice to know that you're so considerate of us stupid people down below. Which is what this is stating: We are too stupid to handle our own careers, and must rely on the benificence of people like likelystory in order to survive.

In the real world, who do you think will snap up this sort of technology? Oilfields are already often ecological disaster zones; wind farms would be sevearl large steps up. Which means that oil companies, which own or lease large tracts of land, will see a viable option and pounce. They're already doing that--there's a reason oil companies love the idea of a hydrogen economy (we don't get H2 from water).

As for fueling cars, how many people would this new idea really put out of work? I'm looking for a full economic analysis, something like an EIR/EIS chapter, not vague "It'll hurt people" statements.

I'm not really asking for anyone's approval,I felt like letting people know that the Earth doesn't need to be Oil Dependent. Out of morbid curiosity, why not go to the newspapers? I'm sure they'd LOVE to break a story like this, if it's true. They're looking for ways to get news before the blogs--they'd be eating out of your hand. Instead, you posted it to an internet forum which is historically hostlie to the type of tone you're setting. Odd.

Can we see any diagrams of your idea? How about a technical description? A basic description? And I'm talking of the turbine itself, not of what it'll do to the economy or environment or anything. Do you have any facts?

[Sean84]

This thread is not designed to boast about an idea I have of revoloutionary Wind Technology,but rather to state in advance of secret things that I knew prior.
*snip*

Secret things highflyertoo likelystory has known prior:
God will give him telekinetic super powers. (date passed/changed)
Obama will be out of office by last January. (date passed/changed)
Obama is the "evil exactor" of biblical prophecy. (TBD)
Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is the evil exactor of biblical prophecy. (2007, apparently abandoned for Obama)

The list goes on.

The question is: Will likelystory attempt to present anything remotely verifiable to confirm his newest world-changing claim or will he simply be boasting about the level of secrecy his prior knowledge requires of him so that he may perpetuate another glorious wind-up to nothing?

Personally, I don't really care. I'll be waiting for the first accusations of "pseudo-skepticism" and popping gluttonous amounts of corn.

Pay no attention to the man in the box. :boxedin:

[likelystory]

Patents don't prove that the tech is viable, only that it's new.

Wind power will not, and CAN not, become the dominant form of energy for consumer consuption. Simply put, the wind is too variable to make it work. Even if you could make a wind farm out of 100% efficient turbines (violating the second law of thermodynamics, I might add) it would only ever serve as a supliment to other, more stable, energy forms. The issue is that during peek usage power companies need to be able to increase their output, and VERY quickly, while power generated during usage lulls is generally wasted power. The storage facilities for any excess power are 1) very large and 2) very inefficient. So at best you use wind power when it works, but you don't relie on it.

It's so nice to know that you're so considerate of us stupid people down below. Which is what this is stating: We are too stupid to handle our own careers, and must rely on the benificence of people like likelystory in order to survive.

In the real world, who do you think will snap up this sort of technology? Oilfields are already often ecological disaster zones; wind farms would be sevearl large steps up. Which means that oil companies, which own or lease large tracts of land, will see a viable option and pounce. They're already doing that--there's a reason oil companies love the idea of a hydrogen economy (we don't get H2 from water).

As for fueling cars, how many people would this new idea really put out of work? I'm looking for a full economic analysis, something like an EIR/EIS chapter, not vague "It'll hurt people" statements.

Out of morbid curiosity, why not go to the newspapers? I'm sure they'd LOVE to break a story like this, if it's true. They're looking for ways to get news before the blogs--they'd be eating out of your hand. Instead, you posted it to an internet forum which is historically hostlie to the type of tone you're setting. Odd.

Can we see any diagrams of your idea? How about a technical description? A basic description? And I'm talking of the turbine itself, not of what it'll do to the economy or environment or anything. Do you have any facts?

I appreciate the time you took to respond to my Wind Technology... Though your statement about Wind Technology being the ongoing apprentice is surely a misnomer... Though I would like to take some time to muse on your other opinions and questions.

[likelystory]

Have you actually invented a vast improvement of wind technology?

Do you have a numerical calculation of how much power your device would generate (in megawatts) under some nominal wind condition?

Do you have an engineering estimate of the cost per unit of this device?

Has a licensed professional engineer signed off on the above calculations? (And "I mentioned it to my mates down the pub, one of whom is a repairman, and they all said it sounded good" doesn't count.) If not, who is the most-highly-educated technical expert who has checked your power calculation? How about your cost estimate?

Does your idea involve high-altitude kites and/or the jet stream? 'Cause I've seen half a dozen glossy vaporware versions of that idea and exactly zero prototypes.

Yes I have invented a new and vast improvement of WT.

No it's not high altitude kites,though I wanted to hit the Jet Stream,though dismissed that over price idea, but 100 ft height towers would produce massive amounts.

The cost factor i something I can't put into figures,yet I believe in comparision to the huge towers they have these days it would be maybe 1/5 to 1/10 of the cost with an out put of x10 to x20... It's been rather mind blowing for me these last few months.

I did ponder a similar idea(s) over a year ago,though didn't have the mental energy to make a start. I've made a start now.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Excuse me Sir,I am the exceptional nut. I have been building it and then I dismantled it and then sawed it up,yet I held on to some parts for future testing. I have the patent paperwork,it's a matter of me improving my drawing skills,then I can have the patent pending.

Wow, you are not going to believe this, but that's the exact same thing I did! I invented a car that gets 425 miles per gallon, then I chopped it up and melted down the metal parts. I did save the rear view mirror, brake pedal and glove box for future testing. Now all I need to do is improve my drawing skills and patent it!

[sol invictus]

Wind cannot supply the power needs of the human race. There literally isn't enough power in it.

[Sherman Bay]

So, likelystory, why not take your technology to the moon?

[MattusMaximus]

Talk is cheap...

To the OP, try actually doing something with your supposedly paradigm-shifting research, like getting it published in a science/engineering journal, as opposed to bragging about it on Internet forums.

What is this, open season for physics nuts? Sheesh! :rolleyes:

[ElMondoHummus]

Which is why he gets the chain-yank award for this post:
Excuse me Sir,I am the exceptional nut.

Ain't that the truth... just not for the reasons he posts. :cool:

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/yankaward.gif

This guy's realized he can rile people just by posting ridiculous statements. Look at his Apollo Hoaxing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6626727#post6626727) over in CT for examples of this. He's here to prod and troll, not talk seriously. He's best ignored.

[ben m]

The cost factor i something I can't put into figures,yet I believe in comparision to the huge towers they have these days it would be maybe 1/5 to 1/10 of the cost with an out put of x10 to x20... It's been rather mind blowing for me these last few months.

The "huge towers they have these days" are able to extract 70% to 80% of the theoretical maximum power based on the wind energy they intercept. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27_law)

Therefore, even at 100%-of-Betz efficiency, the only way to build a turbine with "20x" the power of a modern large (100-150m diameter) turbine, is to build a device that sweeps a quarter of a square kilometer of surface area. Does your device intercept a 500m x500m area of the wind? No? Then you've miscalculated its power output.

[Dinwar]

I appreciate the time you took to respond to my Wind Technology... Though your statement about Wind Technology being the ongoing apprentice is surely a misnomer... Though I would like to take some time to muse on your other opinions and questions. When did I say anything about apprentices? :confused:

Does your device intercept a 500m x500m area of the wind? No? Then you've miscalculated its power output. Wait! Wait! I've figured it out! He's using the energy to--wait for it--split water into hydrogen and oxygen! Then he'll BURN the hydrogen and oxygen, making even MORE energy! :jaw-dropp

He and Bishadi should get together. They'd revolutionize the world. :D

[bokonon]

Because the wind is high, it blows my mind.

[likelystory]

Wind cannot supply the power needs of the human race. There literally isn't enough power in it.

But doesn't the wind have a long range.

For exmple, if I had wind machines hugging the coast ,wouldn't that wind at least travel 5 miles inland scourering the ''Roof Tops'' potenially mounted with Wind Machines (VAWT's Vertical Axis Wind Turbines)?

That's the thing I like about the wind,it's basically continious or long lasting energy.

Say if the wind isn't blowing in the region I'm in for a day, I can asure you that 20 miles away the wind is blowing there.

Please remember I'm talking mainly about coastal regions especially adjoining mini- sea cliffs to large headlands.

I think many people under estimate the amount of wind there actual is availible.

I'm no scientist,but from experiene along the mediterranean coast like districts the wind is semi constant to full on.

[likelystory]

So, likelystory, why not take your technology to the moon?

Yes I think I could make electricty in Space (becauce when something is intially propelled in space there's no resistance to stop it's motion), to then heat water to a gas to propell the Spacecrafts. If a Spacecraft could collect ice along the way then the craft could run for a very long time.

[nathan]

Even if you could make a wind farm out of 100% efficient turbines

You cannot extract 100% of the energy from the wind. If you did that, the air would all pile up behind your extraction machine -- it having no remaining momentum.

[I'm not disagreeing with Dinwar, btw, just pointing out the obvious thought experiment]

[nathan]

Yes I think I could make electricty in Space (becauce when something is intially propelled in space there's no resistance to stop it's motion), to then heat water to a gas to propell the Spacecrafts. If a Spacecraft could collect ice along the way then the craft could run for a very long time.

Do you not see the conflict between the two emboldened fragments?

[likelystory]

You cannot extract 100% of the energy from the wind. If you did that, the air would all pile up behind your extraction machine -- it having no remaining momentum.

[I'm not disagreeing with Dinwar, btw, just pointing out the obvious thought experiment]

You are correct,yet I wasn't claiming that.

Say if I have the Wind Machines proportionally spaced between one another 20 meters, then I could extract alot of energy and then send it to a major battery bank. Which in affect would be 1000% to 10,000,000,000+%

My other approach was to have clusters of the wind machines (different heights and scale sizes) which would/could draw the wind to them the faster they spun. Even changing the surrounding ground they where mounted on.Coloring the ground to produce different temperatures to aggitate the atmosphere.

[likelystory]

Do you not see the conflict between the two emboldened fragments?

The turbine only spins,the collecting is from another chamber. Does this clear it up a bit.

[nathan]

The turbine only spins,the collecting is from another chamber. Does this clear it up a bit.

no

[nathan]

Say if I have the Wind Machines proportionally spaced between one another 20 meters, then I could extract alot of energy and then send it to a major battery bank. Which in affect would be 1000% to 10,000,000,000+%

yeah, right. that's much more feasible than extracting 100% of the energy.

[likelystory]

yeah, right. that's much more feasible than extracting 100% of the energy.

It's an overall ADDED PROFIT over a given distance. It's not a once off contact, my Wind Machines are not to be Wind Walls. Get it?

[Soapy Sam]

Wind cannot supply the power needs of the human race. There literally isn't enough power in it.


I wonder if he means "wind" as pronounced "wined "?

Perhaps he has rediscovered clockwork? It's certainly a way of converting biofuel to stored energy.
And it would get us all fitter winding the springs.:D

[Hellbound]

likelystory:

Reality called. It wanted me to tell you that you can't come back, and it left your stuff on the sidewalk.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If a Spacecraft could collect ice along the way then the craft could run for a very long time.

They could also keep their beer cold.

[Dinwar]

Say if I have the Wind Machines proportionally spaced between one another 20 meters, then I could extract alot of energy and then send it to a major battery bank. Which in affect would be 1000% to 10,000,000,000+%
No, you can't. For two reasons. First, there has to be a certain distance between turbines in order to allow for proper air flow. We've worked that out pretty well (also, on a side note, wind power generators are worse than oil power companies when it comes to caring about endangered species--you CANNOT move turbines from where the engineers put them, so if there's an endangered species the species moves instead). Second, wind power needs wind, which almost universally means altitude. Topograpny will not generally allow you to place your turbines that close to one another.

Coloring the ground around the turbine different colors to enduce wind sounds like an interesting idea, but I have serious doubts about whether that would be any more efficient than, say, an old-fasioned solar pannel. Far more energy will be lost to randomness.

You cannot extract 100% of the energy from the wind. If you did that, the air would all pile up behind your extraction machine -- it having no remaining momentum.

[I'm not disagreeing with Dinwar, btw, just pointing out the obvious thought experiment] It's always a good sign when multiple lines of reasoning point to the same conclusion. :)

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Also consider this. You'd need a LOT of materials to build all of your wind turbines and place them and keep them stable and operational. These materials need to be extracted and processed and transported. All of which will cost significant energy.
Even assuming an ideal field of constant wind with no significant obstructions, how long will it take for your turbines to actually GIVE energy when this is cost if factored in? Will they even do so before they reach the end of their operational lifetime under such conditions?
If so, will they still do so once you put them in less than optimal conditions? Both sea air and desert sand are intensly corrosive and will ensure massive maintenance is needed. Wind turbines also have a habit of slicing birds in half, how many before the blade becomes unoperational?
If its still economically viable, then how much space would you need per person using the average consumption in a country? Say mexico city, would even the whole of mexico have enough space to power that? Now how about a western city that uses more and is in a geographically less open/windy area?

[excaza]

Say if I have the Wind Machines proportionally spaced between one another 20 meters

20 meters apart, all you're going to get is prop wash.

[dafydd]

Shouldn't this thread be in the humour section?

[excaza]

No, this is apparently where LS is showing his understanding of simple high school physics.

[Crossbow]

This thread is not designed to boast about an idea I have of revoloutionary Wind Technology,but rather to state in advance of secret things that I knew prior.

Here's a video showing many ''other'' people's ideas of their wind technology... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEPDkMN71XA

My vast improvement of Wind Technology could meet the Earth's demand for power consumption,The Tech would be so useful to fuel Desalination Plants and purifying drinking water,for heating and cooking and cooling systems. (This seems to sit in my gut fairly well)

I could bring out similar Tech to fuel cars, but how many people are directly affected by New Tech?How many people would loose thier Jobs as a direct result of New Tech or vastly improved Tech. Majority of people don't agree with Oil companies because of their slash and burn policies,but how many people have become Oil Company dependent ?

Does New Tech really produce new jobs for the young only and so throw the Older generation onto the scrap heap? So here I am forecasting my wind machine devices. Should I bring them out to counter the Oil Companies ''couldn't give a care attitude''? I'm not really asking for anyone's approval,I felt like letting people know that the Earth doesn't need to be Oil Dependent.

Well, since you could not substantiate your claim about how the Moon Landings were faked, then I doubt that you can substanitate your wind machine claims either.

By the way, for those of you who may not be familiar with him, 'likelystory' recently tried to proove to everyone that the Moon Landings were faked, yet he was unable to proove anything of the sort. You can read it for yourself at:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6626727#post6626727

[ElMondoHummus]

By the way, for those of you who may not be familiar with him, 'likelystory' recently tried to proove to everyone that the Moon Landings were faked, yet he was unable to proove anything of the sort. You can read it for yourself at:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6626727#post6626727

A-hem!
... This guy's realized he can rile people just by posting ridiculous statements. Look at his >>>Apollo Hoaxing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6626727#post6626727) over in CT<<< for examples of this. He's here to prod and troll...
What, am I invisible or something? :(

[excaza]

____

I thought posts had to be at least 2 characters?


:duck:

[ElMondoHummus]

I thought posts had to be at least 2 characters?


:duck:

:p

[likelystory]

20 meters apart, all you're going to get is prop wash.

What's a prop??

VAWT's don't have to have propellers. VAWT's as compared to HAWT's are uprights.

VAWT means Vertical Axis Wind Turbine

HAWT means Horizontal Axis Wind Turburne


Think of a clusters of Flag Poles,the wind howls between them,if anything the wind picks up speed because of the flag poles close bunching.

[Dinwar]

Except that you're going to be removing energy from the system (converting it to electricity).

The other problem is that the horizontal winds aren't going to provide much push perpendicular to the blades (the props). That's going to minimize your energy output.

[likelystory]

Except that you're going to be removing energy from the system (converting it to electricity).

The other problem is that the horizontal winds aren't going to provide much push perpendicular to the blades (the props). That's going to minimize your energy output.

I prefer the Vawt because it's more bird friendly. I have seen some elaborate blades designs for Vawt's tht spin very fast to the naked eye.

The tall giant wind turbines that are in Germany and Texas are all fixed in one direction. Te advantage to the VAWT is it can pick up winds from all directions.

Here couple of Videos showing how much material goes ino bulding the ''propeller''wind turbines....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxp6QTjgJg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdY8ADBN6hM

[ben m]

Think of a clusters of Flag Poles,the wind howls between them,if anything the wind picks up speed because of the flag poles close bunching.

... and because the flag poles aren't specifically designed to extract energy from the wind by slowing it down. Turbines are. Betz's Law applies just as well to vertical axis turbines as to horizontal axes.

Either the turbines slow the wind down, or the turbines do not generate any power. Pick one.

[MattusMaximus]

No, this is apparently where LS is showing his misunderstanding of simple high school physics.

Fixed that for you.

[MattusMaximus]

... and because the flag poles aren't specifically designed to extract energy from the wind by slowing it down. Turbines are. Betz's Law applies just as well to vertical axis turbines as to horizontal axes.

Either the turbines slow the wind down, or the turbines do not generate any power. Pick one.

LS, this is basic conservation of energy. If the turbine blades, VAWT fins, whatever are being pushed by the wind, then the wind must be losing kinetic energy in order to do this and thus the wind slows down.

What you are proposing is essentially the wind turbine equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, which is an impossibility.

End of story.

[likelystory]

Except that you're going to be removing energy from the system (converting it to electricity).

The other problem is that the horizontal winds aren't going to provide much push perpendicular to the blades (the props). That's going to minimize your energy output.

Then how much reduction of energy loss is likely for a Vertical Turbine?

[MattusMaximus]

A-hem!

What, am I invisible or something? :(

Nah, some of us are just posting for the benefit of the lurkers. Plus, I have nothing better to do at the moment :)

[likelystory]

LS, this is basic conservation of energy. If the turbine blades, VAWT fins, whatever are being pushed by the wind, then the wind must be losing kinetic energy in order to do this and thus the wind slows down.

What you are proposing is essentially the wind turbine equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, which is an impossibility.

End of story.

By how much does the wind slow down?

[likelystory]

LS, this is basic conservation of energy. If the turbine blades, VAWT fins, whatever are being pushed by the wind, then the wind must be losing kinetic energy in order to do this and thus the wind slows down.

What you are proposing is essentially the wind turbine equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, which is an impossibility.

End of story.

What about a rotor that could be perpetual in outer space, is that possible?

[rwguinn]

I prefer the Vawt because it's more bird friendly. I have seen some elaborate blades designs for Vawt's tht spin very fast to the naked eye.

The tall giant wind turbines that are in Germany and Texas are all fixed in one direction. Te advantage to the VAWT is it can pick up winds from all directions.

Here couple of Videos showing how much material goes ino bulding the ''propeller''wind turbines....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxp6QTjgJg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdY8ADBN6hM
Is that why they are all currently pointed North, yet this spring they were pointed Southeast?
I suggest that you actually research and know a little about what you are lying about...

[MattusMaximus]

By how much does the wind slow down?

It doesn't matter how much it slows down, the fact is that it does slow down. Hence, my whole point above about conservation of energy. The fact that you don't seem to be comprehending this basic law of physics makes me think that I won't be investing (nor recommending that others do likewise) in your scheme anytime soon.

[MattusMaximus]

What about a rotor that could be perpetual in outer space, is that possible?

Could you be more specific?

And please tell me you aren't talking about a VAWT or prop rotor.

[likelystory]

20 meters apart, all you're going to get is prop wash.

20 meters is for the very big towers (hundred footers), for the smaller ones a spacing of 1 meter to 3 meters.

[likelystory]

Could you be more specific?

And please tell me you aren't talking about a VAWT or prop rotor.

a magnet rotor, with no bearings, magnetic levitation. Though I know things float in Space, but magnetic levitation would keep the rotor together I think.

[Dinwar]

By how much does the wind slow down? See, what this tells me is that you haven't done your calculations. This is something an inventor of a new form of wind power should know, or at least have access to.

The tall giant wind turbines that are in Germany and Texas are all fixed in one direction. Te advantage to the VAWT is it can pick up winds from all directions.And many of the ones in the Southwestern United States are mobile. That sort of negates the advantage of a VAWT system.

[excaza]

The tall giant wind turbines that are in Germany and Texas are all fixed in one direction.

No they're not. That would be an incredibly stupid design choice.

[excaza]

Then how much reduction of energy loss is likely for a Vertical Turbine?
By how much does the wind slow down?
You tell us, this is your "invention"

What about a rotor that could be perpetual in outer space, is that possible?
No.

[likelystory]

No they're not. That would be an incredibly stupid design choice.

They don't pivot. Are you stirring me up? lol

[excaza]

20 meters is for the very big towers (hundred footers), for the smaller ones a spacing of 1 meter to 3 meters.

You don't really know how fluids work, do you?

[excaza]

They don't pivot.

Yes, they do. In order to generate the maximum amount of power, the blades need to be perpendicular to the wind. Wind is variable, so the hub has to be variable.

[Dinwar]

Even if they didn't there are designs that do. Again, this pretty much removes any benefits derived from a vertical axis (or, more precisely, it removes the one advantage you've offered so far for such a design).

[likelystory]

See, what this tells me is that you haven't done your calculations. This is something an inventor of a new form of wind power should know, or at least have access to.

And many of the ones in the Southwestern United States are mobile. That sort of negates the advantage of a VAWT system.

Oh I mean't that they didn't pivot 360 degrees. So when you say mobile,does that required workers to move them or is their platform they're built on rotates 360 degrees with a computerized machine?

[Dinwar]

Again, this tells me you haven't done your research. Anyone who looks into wind power (or even drives by a wind farm on a regular basis) would know this.

There are multiple types in most wind farms I'm familiar with. However, for the most part the mobile models are computerized--there are sensors on the turbine to detect which direction the wind is coming from, and the turbine automatically adjusts to the optimal angle to the wind. They have full 360 degree capacity.

[excaza]

Oh I mean't that they didn't pivot 360 degrees.

Yuh-huh, suuuuure you did. :rolleyes:

[likelystory]

Again, this tells me you haven't done your research. Anyone who looks into wind power (or even drives by a wind farm on a regular basis) would know this.

There are multiple types in most wind farms I'm familiar with. However, for the most part the mobile models are computerized--there are sensors on the turbine to detect which direction the wind is coming from, and the turbine automatically adjusts to the optimal angle to the wind. They have full 360 degree capacity.

Ok thanks for the update... My new VAWT doesn't need a costly overhead to rotate the wind turbine, the blades catch the wind from all directions.

My machine just grew in it's worth now, one less expensive computer ''not required''.

[likelystory]

Yuh-huh, suuuuure you did. :rolleyes:

Ahem . VAWT rotates on it's vertical 360 degree axis capturing the wind from all directions. Self mobile on the same spot ;)

[ben m]

Ok thanks for the update... My new VAWT doesn't need a costly overhead to rotate the wind turbine, the blades catch the wind from all directions.

My machine just grew in it worth now, one less expensive computer ''not required''.

I think your machine grew in worth from 1/100th as good as a regular turbine. Maybe it got up to 1/99th as good! But still pretty bad.

[Dinwar]

Ok thanks for the update... My new VAWT doesn't need a costly overhead to rotate the wind turbine, the blades catch the wind from all directions.

My machine just grew in it's worth now, one less expensive computer ''not required''. Except: 1) You still haven't explained what your new system IS yet
2) Your system will necessarily use a suboptimal design (wind doesn't blow vertically very often)
3) What you gain in simiplicity you loose many times over in difficulty of maintanence
4) You still haven't explained the fluid dynamics of your rigs and how they'll avoid the prop wash of the other turbines in the area
5) You still expect to extract an indefinite amount of energy from a finite energy source
.....

Sorry, but I'm still not investing in it.

[elbe]

So the wind blows equally on the blades on both sides of the vertical axis. If the blades were flat the forces would cancel each other out and nothing would happen, but even if you designed the blades to still spin you're loosing energy to the wind blowing on the blades in the counter direction.

It really seems like a lousy idea.

[excaza]

So the wind blows equally on the blades on both sides of the vertical axis. If the blades were flat the forces would cancel each other out and nothing would happen, but even if you designed the blades to still spin you're loosing energy to the wind blowing on the blades in the counter direction.

It really seems like a lousy idea.

Assuming someone educated designed them, the blades aren't going to be flat. They (generally) use the same airfoil shape as HAWTs do. Or, for a more simplistic approach, use something similar to a cup anemometer (http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Wright/Images/anemometer_b.jpg).

The problem with VAWTs is that they aren't as efficient as HAWTs, because at some point the airfoil is going to be normal to the airflow as it's spinning around the hub, and therefore not generating any torque. This doesn't happen with HAWTs. So LS's claims of 'one million bajillion increase in efficiency' are completely asinine.

[ben m]

Hi folks,

likelystory did not invent the vertical-axis wind turbine. They have been around for a long time. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_axis_wind_turbine )

Other people's VAWTs work reasonably well. Historically they're somewhat less efficient than HAWTs. They're probably better for many small-scale installations, like if you want a kilowatt-scale rotor installed on your roof. The things that you'd imagine as improving the status of VAWTs are not visionary---you need a lot of boring engineering to optimize the blades, avoid materials stress (VAWT blades supports go from tension to compression on every rotation. They wear out.), optimize the generator/gearbox/starter motor, etc.

As far as I can tell, all that likelystory has done is to imagine a world in which VAWTs are dirt-cheap, ultra-efficient, and still work when densely packed. Uh, yeah, that'd be nice. Also, can I have world peace, a 1000mpg sports car, and a pony?

[MattusMaximus]

a magnet rotor, with no bearings, magnetic levitation. Though I know things float in Space, but magnetic levitation would keep the rotor together I think.

Ummm, no.

A question to get you thinking: What exactly would drive this rotor?

Btw, do you know why things float in space, specifically when they are in orbit around the Earth? The answer is relevant to your idea, and why it won't work.

[rwguinn]

Yuh-huh, suuuuure you did. :rolleyes:
Somebody grab those goalposts before they get away!

[likelystory]

So the wind blows equally on the blades on both sides of the vertical axis. If the blades were flat the forces would cancel each other out and nothing would happen, but even if you designed the blades to still spin you're loosing energy to the wind blowing on the blades in the counter direction.

It really seems like a lousy idea.

The blades are curved

[elbe]

The blades are curved

Well yes, obviously. I'm just mentioning that it's going to be less efficient as only wind blowing on one side of the axle will provide a positive force, wind blowing on the other side, while possible to diminish it's effect, will just negatively impact it's rotation.

[ben m]

The blades are curved

Curved like the Darreius design, or curved like the Gorlov design?

[likelystory]

Well yes, obviously. I'm just mentioning that it's going to be less efficient as only wind blowing on one side of the axle will provide a positive force, wind blowing on the other side, while possible to diminish it's effect, will just negatively impact it's rotation.

Yes, ageed, there will always be drag to contend against,though the positives far outweigh the negatives.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does anyone else think VAWTS are hawt?

[likelystory]

Curved like the Darreius design, or curved like the Gorlov design?

I have my own designs, many different shapes, and I look at other people's ideas also.

Not exactly like the Darrieus design. and definetly not the Golov,though the Gorlov is a work of art.

[elbe]

Yes, ageed, there will always be drag to contend against,though the positives far outweigh the negatives.

Since half of the wind facing area of the device is going to be a net loss of energy, it sure looks like it's negatives outweigh it's positives.

[likelystory]

Since half of the wind facing area of the device is going to be a net loss of energy, it sure looks like it's negatives outweigh it's positives.


There's no negatives in this style of VAWT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLa_NY5U1nk&feature=related

It's a TORQUE VAWT :)

[elbe]

There's no negatives in this style of VAWT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLa_NY5U1nk&feature=related

It's a TORQUE VAWT :)

I can't watch videos. Could you explain how it completely ignores the force of the wind on the side of the axle that isn't catching it?

[likelystory]

I can't watch videos. Could you explain how it completely ignores the force of the wind on the side of the axle that isn't catching it?

The two blades are twisted up the axel. I hope that helps... Bit rough not being able to view videos on the net?

[excaza]

Even with the helical arrangement of the airfoils, there's still a portion of time where they are not generating any torque.

This makes the VAWT less efficient than the HAWT.

[likelystory]

Even with the helical arrangement of the airfoils, there's still a portion of time where they are not generating any torque.

This makes the VAWT less efficient than the HAWT.

The VAWT are space savers, can clump more VAWT'S together for a gazillion more watts.

[excaza]

No, or they would already be doing it.

[Dinwar]

No, you can't. The turbidity generated by the turbines would interfere with the turbines down the line, rendering them progressively less efficient. Unless they were 100% efficient, in which case the air would stop dead after the first rank.

[ben m]

The VAWT are space savers, can clump more VAWT'S together for a gazillion more watts.

Nope. When they're close together they interfere and become much, much less effective.

The only way they "save space" is by being small, i.e being so small that most of the wind doesn't hit them. You don't want space saving wind turbines---it's like having a "height saving hydroelectric plant" or a "temperature-saving gas turbine". For power generation you want wind turbines to be as big as you can afford to build them.

Sorry, likelystory, if you want to make an impact on wind power, please go to school and learn some basic science and engineering.

[likelystory]

No, or they would already be doing it.

God Willing I'll prove it to you in the near future with my power towers.

[Craig4]

So, have you actually generated any electricity yet?

[excaza]

God Willing I'll prove it to you in the near future with my power towers.

If this is all the work you've got (i.e. nothing at all), unless you win the lottery you're not going to get anyone to invest in building one 'power tower,' much less enough to 'bunch together' to generate a 'gazillion watts.'

All you've really demonstrated is that you don't one iota of the relevant knowledge required to be talking about this.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

God Willing I'll prove it to you in the near future with my power towers.

I bet every nickel I have that God isn't willing.

[Dinwar]

You do realize that companies are spending millions of dollars a year trying to get wind power to work, right? They have all kinds of people helping them figure out how to do it. There's a LOT of money in wind power, and if they could figure out a way to make them more efficient they'd pay good money for the design.

Yet all the wind turbines I've seen, and everything I've ever heard about, are horizontal. I wonder if there's a reason for that....

[likelystory]

You do realize that companies are spending millions of dollars a year trying to get wind power to work, right? They have all kinds of people helping them figure out how to do it. There's a LOT of money in wind power, and if they could figure out a way to make them more efficient they'd pay good money for the design.

Yet all the wind turbines I've seen, and everything I've ever heard about, are horizontal. I wonder if there's a reason for that....

new VAWT's will be the pinicale of viable wind power. It''s never been discovered before until I got the idea a few months ago.

new VAWT's will be sprouting up all over the place,even have mini-new VAWT's for picnicing and vaccationing.

The new VAWT won't have to be dependent with the monoply the Chinese have on neodymium magnets..... Can use the ferrite magnets instead or other types.

The more magnets you buy,the cheaper the individual cost is.

It will probably help the Climate Change isues.

[Dinwar]

You may want to follow this advice. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiIPe9ow-BI)

So far you've given us a lot of evaluations, but nothing to base these evaluations on. I've listed five specific bullet point arguments rendering any potential system you could devise useless, which you've ignored. You haven't dealt with the fact that we're already at ~70-80% efficient with wind power capture. You haven't dealt with the fact that your windmills will constantly be fighting themselves (except with vague handwaving about curing the propellers). You haven't provided even a verbal description of your process.

In three pages.

Why should we believe a single thing you have to say on the matter? I'm not saying that in any sort of ironic manner--I mean this literally. Why should we believe you?

[nathan]

I bet every nickel I have that God isn't willing.

I'll bet them too -- your nickels that is, I don't have any.

[dafydd]

So, have you actually generated any electricity yet?

No.

[Rincewind]

God Willing I'll prove it to you in the near future with my power towers.


So God's your investor, is he?

Mind you, it looks like he hasn't actually come up with any cash so far...

[Ethan Thane Athen]

By how much does the wind slow down?

By slightly more than the power you get out of the turbines....

[ingoa]

With all the hot air in the OP we could drive several turbines. :D

[likelystory]

So God's your investor, is he?

Mind you, it looks like he hasn't actually come up with any cash so far...

I don't need millions to make it happen.

[excaza]

I don't need millions to make it happen.

Actually, you do.

[Dinwar]

Even if you didn't, you'd need some investment capital in order to acquire materials. Those blades need to be fairly precise.

[jaydeehess]

I don't need millions to make it happen.

Then go for it.

Get back to us when its up and running.,,, and here's a bit of advice;
don't cut it up into pieces next time. They get really inefficient when you do that.

[jaydeehess]

Even if you didn't, you'd need some investment capital in order to acquire materials. Those blades need to be fairly precise.

I suspect he's making them out of fiberglass and has been sucking too much acetone.

[likelystory]

Even if you didn't, you'd need some investment capital in order to acquire materials. Those blades need to be fairly precise.

Yes I am inclined to somewhat agree with you to have some capital to aquire materials.

[likelystory]

Actually, you do.

Could you please tell me without writing a book about why I would require a Million bananas to get the wind machine operational?

[excaza]

It would be easier if you had dollars instead of bananas.

[Longfellow]

I see that likelystory knows as much about wind-driven electricity generation as he does about the Apollo lunar missions.

It would be rather sad if it weren't so damned funny. :D

[Dinwar]

Could you please tell me without writing a book about why I would require a Million bananas to get the wind machine operational? Draw out the idea--and I mean technical drawings, blueprints, diagrams, the whole nine yards. Enough that if someone had that sheet of paper they could replicate your design. Build a scale model (should be cheaper). Go to an electric company that deals with alternative power. Attempt to sell the concept.

[rwguinn]

Draw out the idea--and I mean technical drawings, blueprints, diagrams, the whole nine yards. Enough that if someone had that sheet of paper they could replicate your design. Build a scale model (should be cheaper). Go to an electric company that deals with alternative power. Attempt to sell the concept.
That's "how". He asked "why"...

[Dinwar]

Ah. Well.

As for why, equipment. This stuff isn't cheap--the blades need to be constructed to within certain tolerances, the turbine needs to be constructed to handle a wide range of weather patterns, the materials need to stand up to the strain imposed on them merely by being operational...This last is probably the most important. The bolts, the frame, everything about the blades on a VAWT will be under constant torque merely be virtue of existing. When it starts to actually function, the strain will be much higher. And failure can be catastrophic.

Also, to be blunt, no one will believe you unless you offer proof on a large scale (read a fully functional turbine).

All of this will cost money.

[rwguinn]

Ah. Well.

As for why, equipment. This stuff isn't cheap--the blades need to be constructed to within certain tolerances, the turbine needs to be constructed to handle a wide range of weather patterns, the materials need to stand up to the strain stresses imposed on them merely by being operational...This last is probably the most important. The bolts, the frame, everything about the blades on a VAWT will be under constant torque merely be virtue of existing. When it starts to actually function, the strain stresses will be much higher. And failure can be catastrophic.

Also, to be blunt, no one will believe you unless you offer proof on a large scale (read a fully functional turbine).

All of this will cost money.
Stress is what fails parts. Please don't confuse the two.

[catsmate1]

Does anyone else think VAWTS are hawt?
Only when they're bent over:D

[dafydd]

Should we hold our collective breath while we wait for this technology to revolutionize energy production?

[Dinwar]

Fair enough. Stress is what causes failure, strain is how the failure happens. :o

[likelystory]

You may want to follow this advice. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiIPe9ow-BI)

So far you've given us a lot of evaluations, but nothing to base these evaluations on. I've listed five specific bullet point arguments rendering any potential system you could devise useless, which you've ignored. You haven't dealt with the fact that we're already at ~70-80% efficient with wind power capture. You haven't dealt with the fact that your windmills will constantly be fighting themselves (except with vague handwaving about curing the propellers). You haven't provided even a verbal description of your process.

In three pages.

Why should we believe a single thing you have to say on the matter? I'm not saying that in any sort of ironic manner--I mean this literally. Why should we believe you?

Advantages of vertical axis wind turbines
VAWTs offer a number of advantages over traditional horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWTs). They can be packed closer together in wind farms, allowing more in a given space. This is not because they are smaller, but rather due to the slowing effect on the air that HAWTs have, forcing designers to separate them by ten times their width.[4]

VAWTs are rugged, quiet, omni-directional, and they do not create as much stress on the support structure. They do not require as much wind to generate power, thus allowing them to be closer to the ground. By being closer to the ground they are easily maintained and can be installed on chimneys and similar tall structures.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_axis_wind_turbine

[excaza]

Maybe you should actually read the references instead of quotemining.

[likelystory]

Maybe you should actually read the references instead of quotemining.

VAWT'S can be clumped together,they don't have to be as tall as HAWT'S.

My VAWT 100 feet

HAWT 442 feet

That a huge reduction is material expenditure

The footprint of my style of VAWT will be miniscule compared to HAWT'S bigfoot print.

Does this sound feesable to you now?

[excaza]

Maybe you should read the references.

[likelystory]

Maybe you should read the references.

I have done

[excaza]

So can you share your plan for avoiding the fatigue issues? Some novel material?

[likelystory]

So can you share your plan for avoiding the fatigue issues? Some novel material?

VAWT'S don't suffer the same blade fatigue. I'm more in favour of the helical shapes made of plastic coated with fibreglass or thin sheet metal coated with fibreglass........ I'm still not sure,maybe perspex.

If and when the blades get worn,then replace them.

[excaza]

VAWT'S don't suffer the same blade fatigue.

I thought you said you read the references.

Also, you need to do a lot more research if you think that PMMA can be used for a turbine blade.

[likelystory]

I thought you said you read the references.

Also, you need to do a lot more research if you think that PMMA can be used for a turbine blade.

No, too much research is an inhibitor, nothing ever gets done.

As I said my VAWT is the produccer of electricty for the whole Earth. It's like when Tesla's trumped Edison's power stations. So too will mine trump the Oil Giants.

How can I disagree with fact? Remember Tesla.

[excaza]

How can I disagree with fact?

You haven't had much trouble thus far.

[likelystory]

You haven't had much trouble thus far.

I don't agree with you,and that's a fact. Remember Tesla got the Niagara Project.

[excaza]

You don't agree with reality either.

[ben m]

No, too much research is an inhibitor, nothing ever gets done.

It is not possible to do less than you've done already.


As I said my VAWT is the produccer of electricty for the whole Earth. .

"your" VAWT? The only things you've said in favor of VAWTs are quotes from other people's VAWTs. The only thing we know you have contributed is the idea to "pack them close together", which doesn't work.

[likelystory]

It is not possible to do less than you've done already.



"your" VAWT? The only things you've said in favor of VAWTs are quotes from other people's VAWTs. The only thing we know you have contributed is the idea to "pack them close together", which doesn't work.

I'm not convinced you actually believe packing VAWT's together will interfere with each others wind flow.
Have any evidence to back up your statement?

HAWT's are the models that have to be spaced out from one another at great distances compared to their size.

[likelystory]

You don't agree with reality either.

Are you suggesting Tesla didn't agree with reality? I don't believe in Martians, Ok :)

[nathan]

As I said my VAWT is the produccer of electricty for the whole Earth.

'is'? so these things exist? where?

(There are of course other conditions that must be satisfied to make the whole of likelystory's story true, but this is one of the simplest to verify)

[likelystory]

'is'? so these things exist? where?

(There are of course other conditions that must be satisfied to make the whole of likelystory's story true, but this is one of the simplest to verify)

Rephrase.......Will be :)

[likelystory]

It's a new motor


That's where the extra 10+ fold power comes from.

[nathan]

It's a new motor


That's where the extra 10+ fold power comes from.

Why is a motor significant in power generation? I doubt the servo motors in wind turbines use >90% of the energy generated, which would have to be the case for a new kind of motor to make such a significant change to net generated power.

[excaza]

I'm guessing he's actually talking about the gearbox.

But, based on his previous posts, I'm not feeling very inspired by his proclamation, despite the giant font.

[Mashuna]

It's a new motor


That's where the extra 10+ fold power comes from.

Only if you've hooked it up to a diesel generator.

You have, haven't you. . .:covereyes

[likelystory]

Only if you've hooked it up to a diesel generator.

You have, haven't you. . .:covereyes

No so do.

[likelystory]

Secret things highflyertoo likelystory has known prior:
God will give him telekinetic super powers. (date passed/changed)
Obama will be out of office by last January. (date passed/changed)
Obama is the "evil exactor" of biblical prophecy. (TBD)
Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is the evil exactor of biblical prophecy. (2007, apparently abandoned for Obama)

The list goes on.

The question is: Will likelystory attempt to present anything remotely verifiable to confirm his newest world-changing claim or will he simply be boasting about the level of secrecy his prior knowledge requires of him so that he may perpetuate another glorious wind-up to nothing?

Personally, I don't really care. I'll be waiting for the first accusations of "pseudo-skepticism" and popping gluttonous amounts of corn.

Pay no attention to the man in the box. :boxedin:

How's the bowl of popcorn going? Any left for me ;)

[Dinwar]

No, too much research is an inhibitor, nothing ever gets done.
No. One must adequately research the problem before attempting to solve it. It's obvious from this statement alone that you have failed to do so. The issue is that someone else probably has come up with a very similar idea to what you're thinking of (yes, even a completely novel idea usually has precursers when you take the time to look), and have found flaws in it.

Tesla has nothing to do with this discussion. Unless you're saying you stole your design from Tesla, what he did is completely irrelevant.

Rephrase.......Will beThis is an evaluation. We're asking for facts.

[ben m]

I'm not convinced you actually believe packing VAWT's together will interfere with each others wind flow.
Have any evidence to back up your statement?

Yes: conservation of energy requires it. The only energy that's available to the turbine's generator must be energy that's taken out of the wind. It is true for both HAWTs and VAWTs; the wind speed behind an efficiency-maximizing turbine is about 64% of the wind speed in front of it. (Betz's law, from 0.64 = sqrt(1-0.593))


HAWT's are the models that have to be spaced out from one another at great distances compared to their size.

Nope, all turbines have that limitation.

[ben m]

It's a new motor


That's where the extra 10+ fold power comes from.

Nope. Existing wind turbines have generators with ~90% peak efficiency. (Depends on wind speed, though)

If you have invented a perfect lossless generator, you improve the power by 10%, or "1.1-fold"---not 10+ fold. That is a number you made up out of thin air.

[ben m]

My VAWT 100 feet

HAWT 442 feet

Nope. The reason HAWTs are so tall is because the wind is stronger high off the ground. There's more power up there to begin with---everyone builds towers as high as they can afford. Is 100 feet "as high as you can afford"? Did you calculate that 100 feet optimizes watts-per-dollar-of-tower-materials, and that 442 feet wastes material without paying it back in power?

It's like building a solar power plant, aiming the panels down instead of up, and bragging that this "saves on cleaning".

[likelystory]

Nope. The reason HAWTs are so tall is because the wind is stronger high off the ground. There's more power up there to begin with---everyone builds towers as high as they can afford. Is 100 feet "as high as you can afford"? Did you calculate that 100 feet optimizes watts-per-dollar-of-tower-materials, and that 442 feet wastes material without paying it back in power?

It's like building a solar power plant, aiming the panels down instead of up, and bragging that this "saves on cleaning".

I with a sponsor or investor or sell or lease the patent had ideas of building to a height of 1 Kilometer,then I thought why not go a Mile high (5280.23 feet) with my Towers which, with a cluster of them could be producing Ten Terawatts. There's hurricane force winds at that height.

All this came to me when I was walking around the City late in the evening and decided to park my butt on a public aluminum bench seat. But why build so tall if a can have 100 footers that don't ''ice up'',and are viable to produce enough electricity for the City and surrouding townships?

Besides a 5000 foot towers could, ''could'' become a terrorist target,and the maintaince becomes to awkward at that height.

I do think that the Chinese will build the towers (my style of tower) at over 3000 ft,and they the Chinese wil build thousands of them.

My towers will make coal very unwanted,and a good thing to with all this open pit coal mining which utterly destroys the landscape.

[Dinwar]

My towers will make coal very unwanted,and a good thing to with all this open pit coal mining which utterly destroys the landscape. This is an evaluation. Please provide us with facts.

All this came to me when I was walking around the City late in the evening and decided to park my butt on a public aluminum bench seat. But why build so tall if a can have 100 footers that don't ''ice up'',and are viable to produce enough electricity for the City and surrouding townships?
You really don't know much about building things, do you? The reason we have no mile-high buildings is because the stresses on buildings of that hight would be tremendous, and VERY difficult to deal with. Skyscrapers are built to withstand a fair amount of bending when the wind blows--I've heard stories from engineers about watching the top of the building move to the other side of streets in high winds. If you put up a pole or lattice tower you're going to have to allow for that sort of motion, only on a scale that's MUCH greater than a standard skyscraper. Worse, you'd have to put the foundations so far into the ground that merely excavating the foundations would render this so expensive you'd never get your investment back, never mind the cost of the inevitable falure (replacement and all the lawsuits, minimum). If you put this on a pyramid style structure it'd be so big that the city could be inside it.

In short, icing up is so far down the list of concerns that to even mention it is rediculous.

Besides a 5000 foot towers could, ''could'' become a terrorist target,and the maintaince becomes to awkward at that height.
Terrorists are, again, so far down your list of concerns that they don't even need to be mentioned. Metal fatigue alone would result in catestrophic failure increadibly quickly.

[likelystory]

This is an evaluation. Please provide us with facts.

You really don't know much about building things, do you? The reason we have no mile-high buildings is because the stresses on buildings of that hight would be tremendous, and VERY difficult to deal with. Skyscrapers are built to withstand a fair amount of bending when the wind blows--I've heard stories from engineers about watching the top of the building move to the other side of streets in high winds. If you put up a pole or lattice tower you're going to have to allow for that sort of motion, only on a scale that's MUCH greater than a standard skyscraper. Worse, you'd have to put the foundations so far into the ground that merely excavating the foundations would render this so expensive you'd never get your investment back, never mind the cost of the inevitable falure (replacement and all the lawsuits, minimum). If you put this on a pyramid style structure it'd be so big that the city could be inside it.

In short, icing up is so far down the list of concerns that to even mention it is rediculous.

Terrorists are, again, so far down your list of concerns that they don't even need to be mentioned. Metal fatigue alone would result in catestrophic failure increadibly quickly.

Nice to hear from you again,have you engineering skills? What about a tri-central bracing (from the top of the VAWT ) in a semi-loop with cross bracing to the base of the tower. This will provided added strength while allowing the blades to twirl :) This would allow towers to built to 1000- 2000 ft

[Dinwar]

Nice to hear from you again,have you engineering skills?While I'm not an engineer my job involves talking to a lot of them, and I grew up in a family of engineers. So I've picked up a few things. Plus, subjects like metal fatigue tend to become important when the only thing standing between your skull and an oncomming 1.25"x7' wooden rod weilded by an ex-linebacker and a 14 gauge piece of steel.

Nothing you do to the base of the tower is going to stop the metal fatique at the top. The tower HAS to move--otherwise it'll snap like a twig before you even construct it. And the higher you build things, the more they move. The more they move, the more susseptable they are to metal fatigue. Thus, your crossbracing is irrelevant to this discussion. Unless you put it on the outside of the tower and put it almost right up to the blades, which will create a "tower" with a HUGE footprint (and remember, the external bracing will need foundations as well as the tower, adding to your costs). This removes any potential space savings from such a tower.

Even if you could solve the mechanical troubles, like I said you'd have to put the foundations so deep that you'd never recoup your costs. How wide do you want to the towers? Have you ever read the National Environmental Protection Act? How about local and state acts? There's a reason mile-high wind turbines don't exist yet, despite the wind speed being faster up there--the higher you build, the more it costs. To put it in perspective, an auger crew costs a couple thousand dollars a day (drill rig+2 drillers+fuel+equipment+overhead). Your biologist will cost between $500 and $1k a day. Other resource monitors will be equivalent.

[ben m]

ideas of building to a height of 1 Kilometer,then I thought why not go a Mile high (5280.23 feet) with my Towers ... But why build so tall if a can have 100 footers that don't ''ice up'',and are viable to produce enough electricity for the City and surrouding townships?

You didn't answer my question. Let me make it clearer. Fill in the blanks:

"With my design, at a good site (say, Cape Cod):

a turbine 100 feet high would cost _____ to construct, ____/yr to maintain, and produce _____ kWh averaged over the year
a turbine 400 feet high would cost _____ to construct, ____/yr to maintain, and produce _____ kWh averaged over the year
a turbine 1000 feet high would cost _____ to construct, ____/yr to maintain, and produce _____ kWh averaged over the year
a turbine 5000 feet high would cost _____ to construct, ____/yr to maintain, and produce _____ kWh averaged over the year
"

Don't explain, just fill in the numbers.

[likelystory]

While I'm not an engineer my job involves talking to a lot of them, and I grew up in a family of engineers. So I've picked up a few things. Plus, subjects like metal fatigue tend to become important when the only thing standing between your skull and an oncomming 1.25"x7' wooden rod weilded by an ex-linebacker and a 14 gauge piece of steel.

Nothing you do to the base of the tower is going to stop the metal fatique at the top. The tower HAS to move--otherwise it'll snap like a twig before you even construct it. And the higher you build things, the more they move. The more they move, the more susseptable they are to metal fatigue. Thus, your crossbracing is irrelevant to this discussion. Unless you put it on the outside of the tower and put it almost right up to the blades, which will create a "tower" with a HUGE footprint (and remember, the external bracing will need foundations as well as the tower, adding to your costs). This removes any potential space savings from such a tower.

Even if you could solve the mechanical troubles, like I said you'd have to put the foundations so deep that you'd never recoup your costs. How wide do you want to the towers? Have you ever read the National Environmental Protection Act? How about local and state acts? There's a reason mile-high wind turbines don't exist yet, despite the wind speed being faster up there--the higher you build, the more it costs. To put it in perspective, an auger crew costs a couple thousand dollars a day (drill rig+2 drillers+fuel+equipment+overhead). Your biologist will cost between $500 and $1k a day. Other resource monitors will be equivalent.

That's what I;m saying the tri-central bracing is on the ''outside'' of the tower.

And no the ''footprint'' isn't going to huge for 1000-2000 ft towers........ And agreed,there has to be some sway/give in the tri-central bracing.

My secret invention is not that difficult compared to other Wind Turbines such as the HAWT's.

[Dinwar]

You know what? I'm just going to ignore you until you actually provide some data. I've been asking for days, and all I get is "My new design is going to be GREAT!" You refuse to even discuss design aspects that can't have any implications for financial gain (the bracing, for example).

Put up or shut up, please.

[jaydeehess]

I wonder why no one has constructed a mile high anything let alone a wind turbine tower............................?
I wonder if Dinwar might be onto something...........

[rwguinn]

Nice to hear from you again,have you engineering skills? What about a tri-central bracing (from the top of the VAWT ) in a semi-loop with cross bracing to the base of the tower. This will provided added strength while allowing the blades to twirl :) This would allow towers to built to 1000- 2000 ft
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[likelystory]

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

I'm serious.

[Hellbound]

I'm serious.

And that's why it's so funny.

[Craig4]

You're serious about wanting to do this. You're not serious about putting the effort into learning the engineering and physics of how wind turbines really operate. You can want to do this all you want but your desires have no impact on your abilities.

[Dinwar]

I'm serious. No, not really. If you were, you would have done an adequate amount of background research, and would have designed a prototype rather than arguing with people online. If you DID choose to argue online, you'd provide data--perhaps not enough that we could recreated what you're doing, but certainly enough to show that you know what you're talking about.

You've failed both. Sorry, but I find it difficult to believe that you really are serious. You may think you are, but you haven't done your due dilligence in regard to this technology.

[Safe-Keeper]

No, not really. If you were, you would have done an adequate amount of background research, and would have designed a prototype rather than arguing with people online.He did. He just can't show it to us because he sawed it up. I can sorta understand him, I made a car that didn't need any kind of fuel to run and ended up taking a sledgehammer to it just 'coz I could. It's just how some people roll, you know.

[likelystory]

You're serious about wanting to do this. You're not serious about putting the effort into learning the engineering and physics of how wind turbines really operate. You can want to do this all you want but your desires have no impact on your abilities.

My turbine invention is different and yet operates with in the known physics.

I went for a walk tonight and measured 300 meters for 1000 foot towers,it's rather long but with skilled workers the towers can be erected and stablized. Well that's how I percieve it.

The late twin towers were over 1300 feet and their footprint wasn't huge to their height.

[likelystory]

The CN Tower in Canada is over 1800 feet, and I'm get laughed at for only 1000 foot.

[Dinwar]

The CN tower wasn't built to generate power; the means of returning the cost are different.

The late twin towers were over 1300 feet and their footprint wasn't huge to their height. Actually, they were. At least, for what you're doing. First off, they had fairly massive foundations. Second, their shape and design is most definitely NOT conducive to generating wind power--they were MASSIVE structures, whereas wind power (particularly if you want the turbine to be vertical) must be very narrow, to allow windflow. "Huge" is a relative term, remember--if you designed your towers to be like a skyscraper, you'd block 100% of the wind, rendering your tower useless.

but with skilled workers the towers can be erected and stablized. Well that's how I percieve it. "How will you build it?" "Somehow." :rolleyes:

[ben m]

My turbine invention is different and yet operates with in the known physics.

Nope---if you think it generates "10x" the power of a normal turbine, then it's violating conservation of energy (definitely not known physics!). If you think it doesn't perturb the wind behind it, it's violating conservation of energy or mass, and/or the ideal gas law.

That's not known physics, that's "daydreaming about how good your invention is and making up numbers to fit the daydream"

I don't want to discourage you from thinking about wind power, but the way you're going about it is not productive.

[CriticalThanking]

[I know I will regret this, but...]
likelystory - if your innovation is in the motor, can your motor be incorporated into existing designs? You would remove the complexity and cost of the height, materials science, and spacing issues and prove the feasability of your motor in far less time. You should be able to get hard numbers out of such a test. You will either have people beating down your door to use the motor, or you will have the potential to learn why your idea did not work. [I worded that last sentence with great care.]

CT

[dlorde]

I'm no scientist, ...

There's your problem.

[rwguinn]

My turbine invention is different and yet operates with in the known physics.

I went for a walk tonight and measured 300 meters for 1000 foot towers,it's rather long but with skilled workers the towers can be erected and stablized. Well that's how I percieve it.

The late twin towers were over 1300 feet and their footprint wasn't huge to their height.
200 feet on a side is large, dude.
And there were floors every 12-15 feet, supporting the sidewalls against buckling. Kind of hard to get airflow vertically through that.

[Little 10 Toes]

My turbine invention is different and yet operates with in the known physics.

I went for a walk tonight and measured 300 meters for 1000 foot towers,it's rather long but with skilled workers the towers can be erected and stablized. Well that's how I percieve it.

The late twin towers were over 1300 feet and their footprint wasn't huge to their height.

As previously mentioned, the Twin Towers had massive foundations. From what someone told me (can't remember), most of the isle of Manhattan is bedrock. One is able to build so high because the ground won't move. Try building those same buildings in the Sahara and you'll have a whole new set of problems.

[likelystory]

As previously mentioned, the Twin Towers had massive foundations. From what someone told me (can't remember), most of the isle of Manhattan is bedrock. One is able to build so high because the ground won't move. Try building those same buildings in the Sahara and you'll have a whole new set of problems.

My wind towers may be as high as the twin towers were,yet by no means as heavy....Slenderness is the key ;)

[Dinwar]

Slenderness?

Okay, you REALLY don't know about engineering. From here (http://cnx.org/content/m10737/latest/), the strength of a column goes down as the slenderness ratio goes up. This is easily demonstrated--take the oil dipstick out of your car and bend it. Then take an equally thick piece of 2x4 pine (which is less strong per volume than the metal in a dipstick) and bend it. Which one can you bend?

Weight has almost nothing to do with this (though topping a tower with a massive fan blade is going to play havoc with your tower the instant the wind blows). It's simple engineering principles, stuff that even non-engineers should know and can easily demonstrate. I mean, have you ever wondered WHY skyscrapers weigh as much as they do?

[likelystory]

Slenderness?

Okay, you REALLY don't know about engineering. From here (http://cnx.org/content/m10737/latest/), the strength of a column goes down as the slenderness ratio goes up. This is easily demonstrated--take the oil dipstick out of your car and bend it. Then take an equally thick piece of 2x4 pine (which is less strong per volume than the metal in a dipstick) and bend it. Which one can you bend?

Weight has almost nothing to do with this (though topping a tower with a massive fan blade is going to play havoc with your tower the instant the wind blows). It's simple engineering principles, stuff that even non-engineers should know and can easily demonstrate. I mean, have you ever wondered WHY skyscrapers weigh as much as they do?



That's where the outer braces come into play... To support the slender tower.

[Dinwar]

Right. And as I said, those outer braces wold have a massive footprint, meaning your towers could not be spaced as close as regular wind turbines. Add to that the stresses involved with huge constructions like that and metal fatigue, and you'd have a catestrophic collaps before you'd built the thing.

[likelystory]

Right. And as I said, those outer braces wold have a massive footprint, meaning your towers could not be spaced as close as regular wind turbines. Add to that the stresses involved with huge constructions like that and metal fatigue, and you'd have a catestrophic collaps before you'd built the thing.

Then tell me in your own words the diameter of the footprint you allege would be needed for a 200 foot tower.

Remeber mine is a VAWT not a HAWT.

[Dinwar]

We weren't discussing a 200' tower, we were discussing a mile high tower. A 200' tower is more than feasble (thanks to a MUCH smaller slenderness ratio). Thanks for moving the goalpost, though.

ETA: I fail to see how the angle of the turbine will dramatically affect the tower stability. My argument about material strength on a mile-high tower holds true no matter how you possition the blades. Oh, and before you object to me discussing your mile-high tower idea, it speaks to your credibility. If you honestly can't see the flaws in building a mile-high, high-slenderness-ratio structure, it is doubtful that you understand the physical requirements to build a wind turbine to begin with, let alone how to improve them.

I'm still waiting on some actual data on this topic, by the way. You still haven't provided any.

[rwguinn]

Then tell me in your own words the diameter of the footprint you allege would be needed for a 200 foot tower.

Remeber mine is a VAWT not a HAWT.
Anybody see a goalpost here?
First it was a mile high, then 3000 feet, then 1000 feet, now 200 feet.
FYI, the HAWT's in West Texas have a footprint (Base Diameter) of about 10-12 feet.

[likelystory]

We weren't discussing a 200' tower, we were discussing a mile high tower. A 200' tower is more than feasble (thanks to a MUCH smaller slenderness ratio). Thanks for moving the goalpost, though.

A mile high was mentioned, and a one hundred footer was mentioned and also I mentioned 1000 to 2000 footer.......

Most of the last few posts were in reference to ''1000 foot tower'', so kindly tell me the diameter of the footprint for a 1000 FOOT TOWER ( One Thousand Foot Tower).

[Dinwar]

No.

You don't get to demand data, while flat-out refusing to provide any yourself. Either put up, shut up, or go away, please.

[likelystory]

200 feet on a side is large, dude.
And there were floors every 12-15 feet, supporting the sidewalls against buckling. Kind of hard to get airflow vertically through that.

Oh two hundred feet is large?

Anybody see a goalpost here?
First it was a mile high, then 3000 feet, then 1000 feet, now 200 feet.
FYI, the HAWT's in West Texas have a footprint (Base Diameter) of about 10-12 feet.

Only a 10 - 12 feet for a large 200 foot tower?? I thought you said it was large :confused:

[likelystory]

No.

You don't get to demand data, while flat-out refusing to provide any yourself. Either put up, shut up, or go away, please.

You said it would require a huge footprint for my towers, now you've restorted to rudeness.

[ynot]

likelystory - So when do you think your first new and improved VAWT will be up and running to provide actual evidence that you’re not just another deluded nutter?

[rwguinn]

Oh two hundred feet is large?



Only a 10 - 12 feet for a large 200 foot tower?? I thought you said it was large :confused:
Nobody's as stupid as you are trying to make us believe you are.
You asked about a 1300 foot tower, and the WTC, not a tower<200 feet, which is what the West Texas towers are.
I guess you are simply a liar who can't remember which story he's talking about at any given time.
And those are HAWT/ VAWT's will require considerably more footprint, just because of what they are

[likelystory]

likelystory - So when do you think your first new and improved VAWT will be up and running to provide actual evidence that you’re not just another deluded nutter?

four to six months....... and it will only be a maximum of ten foot tall electricity producing proto type

[ynot]

four to six months....... and it will only be a maximum of ten foot tall electricity producing proto type
GREAT! - I was hoping it would be before Dec 21 2012.

I have it on the authority of many females that “size doesn’t count” so I’m sure a ten-footer will be fine. Can’t wait to see the first video you post.

I have invented many VAWT’s and HAWT’s myself but none of them are anywhere near as amazing as you claim yours is.

[likelystory]

Yes I have invented a new and vast improvement of WT.

No it's not high altitude kites,though I wanted to hit the Jet Stream,though dismissed that over price idea, but 100 ft height towers would produce massive amounts.

The cost factor i something I can't put into figures,yet I believe in comparision to the huge towers they have these days it would be maybe 1/5 to 1/10 of the cost with an out put of x10 to x20... It's been rather mind blowing for me these last few months.

I did ponder a similar idea(s) over a year ago,though didn't have the mental energy to make a start. I've made a start now.

20 meters is for the very big towers (hundred footers), for the smaller ones a spacing of 1 meter to 3 meters.

VAWT'S can be clumped together,they don't have to be as tall as HAWT'S.

My VAWT 100 feet

HAWT 442 feet

That a huge reduction is material expenditure

The footprint of my style of VAWT will be miniscule compared to HAWT'S bigfoot print.

Does this sound feesable to you now?

I with a sponsor or investor or sell or lease the patent had ideas of building to a height of 1 Kilometer,then I thought why not go a Mile high (5280.23 feet) with my Towers which, with a cluster of them could be producing Ten Terawatts. There's hurricane force winds at that height.

All this came to me when I was walking around the City late in the evening and decided to park my butt on a public aluminum bench seat. But why build so tall if a can have 100 footers that don't ''ice up'',and are viable to produce enough electricity for the City and surrouding townships?

Besides a 5000 foot towers could, ''could'' become a terrorist target,and the maintaince becomes to awkward at that height.

I do think that the Chinese will build the towers (my style of tower) at over 3000 ft,and they the Chinese wil build thousands of them.

My towers will make coal very unwanted,and a good thing to with all this open pit coal mining which utterly destroys the landscape.

Nice to hear from you again,have you engineering skills? What about a tri-central bracing (from the top of the VAWT ) in a semi-loop with cross bracing to the base of the tower. This will provided added strength while allowing the blades to twirl :) This would allow towers to built to 1000- 2000 ft

Nobody's as stupid as you are trying to make us believe you are.
You asked about a 1300 foot tower, and the WTC, not a tower<200 feet, which is what the West Texas towers are.
I guess you are simply a liar who can't remember which story he's talking about at any given time.
And those are HAWT/ VAWT's will require considerably more footprint, just because of what they are

So I did make mention of one hundred footers being more preferable, even though I did mention 1000 to 2000 footers, and even a mile high, but declined on the mile high because of icing up.........

Oh to make it easier for Dinwar I politely asked him what would be the footprint for a VAWT of mine of a height of 200 feet....... Ok ;)

[likelystory]

GREAT! - I was hoping it would be before Dec 21 2012.

I have it on the authority of many females that “size doesn’t count” so I’m sure a ten-footer will be fine. Can’t wait to see the first video you post.

I have invented many VAWT’s and HAWT’s myself but none of them are anywhere near as amazing as you claim yours is.

Can I view your YouTube homepage to see your inventions. I spend hours at a time watching peoples backyard Wind machine inventions.

I seen a vibrationg ribbon magnetic strip,don't know how's that guys invention progressed.

[ben m]

four to six months....... and it will only be a maximum of ten foot tall electricity producing proto type

Will it demonstrate your claim of "10x as much energy"?

For example, this off the shelf turbine http://www.urbangreenenergy.com/eddygt/ has an 8-foot tall, 6-foot-diameter rotor. It sweeps 4.6 m^2 and produces 1000W in 12 m/s wind, or about 200 watts per square meter.

Do you contend that your VAWT will produce 2000 watts per square meter?

[Dinwar]

You said it would require a huge footprint for my towers, now you've restorted to rudeness. First, re-read my posts. I was specifically referring to the mile-high tower you proposed. Second, refusing your request until you do the MINIMUM necessary for any rational person to consider your ideas is hardly rude.

So I did make mention of one hundred footers being more preferable, even though I did mention 1000 to 2000 footers, and even a mile high, but declined on the mile high because of icing up.........

Oh to make it easier for Dinwar I politely asked him what would be the footprint for a VAWT of mine of a height of 200 feet....... Ok And the goal post moves again. No. You ignored that we were discussing your proposed mile-high tower (if you'd read those posts in context it'd be obvious), and when it was pointed out that you had no idea what you were talking about you backpeddled to a 200' tower. And now you're saying that you didn't backpeddle, you were being polite. :rolleyes:

When you have actual data (none has been give at this point, in five pages), please let us know.

[ynot]

Can I view your YouTube homepage to see your inventions. I spend hours at a time watching peoples backyard Wind machine inventions.

I seen a vibrationg ribbon magnetic strip,don't know how's that guys invention progressed.
Haven’t posted many of my inventions on YouTube and certainly no AWT’s.

Here’s a video of a circular wind tunnel I made to demonstrate DDWFTTW - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOINjCtkL0Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOINjCtkL0Y)

And a turntable for the same purpose - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTF5kw51H60&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTF5kw51H60&feature=related)

They are both very crudely constructed as I only meant them to be used for my own purpose. I only published them because others were interested in seeing them. They both worked well.

[likelystory]

Haven’t posted many of my inventions on YouTube and certainly no AWT’s.

Here’s a video of a circular wind tunnel I made to demonstrate DDWFTTW - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOINjCtkL0Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOINjCtkL0Y)

And a turntable for the same purpose - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTF5kw51H60&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTF5kw51H60&feature=related)

They are both very crudely constructed as I only meant them to be used for my own purpose. I only published them because others were interested in seeing them. They both worked well.


Thanks for your Videos.Very interesting,I never knew people were at loggerheads about going faster than the Wind Speed when powered by the wind.

[Craig4]

Can I view your YouTube homepage to see your inventions. I spend hours at a time watching peoples backyard Wind machine inventions.

I seen a vibrationg ribbon magnetic strip,don't know how's that guys invention progressed.

Might your time be better spent studying engineering and physics?

[ynot]

Might your time be better spent studying engineering and physics?
But that would spoil the bliss of ignorance.

[likelystory]

Might your time be better spent studying engineering and physics?

If I had of done that then there would have been no time to invent the ''new VAWT''.

[likelystory]

[I know I will regret this, but...]
likelystory - if your innovation is in the motor, can your motor be incorporated into existing designs? You would remove the complexity and cost of the height, materials science, and spacing issues and prove the feasability of your motor in far less time. You should be able to get hard numbers out of such a test. You will either have people beating down your door to use the motor, or you will have the potential to learn why your idea did not work. [I worded that last sentence with great care.]

CT

I have already thought about this awhile ago and I would say No.

[Mashuna]

If I had of done that then there would have been no time to invent the ''new VAWT''.

But you might have come up with something that works.

[likelystory]

But you might have come up with something that works.

Maybe I'll come back next year. bye :)

[nathan]

Only a 10 - 12 feet for a large 200 foot tower?? I thought you said it was large :confused:

You may think that, but where is the evidence that he did claim that though? I don't see any.

[Cuddles]

The only energy that's available to the turbine's generator must be energy that's taken out of the wind.

Not necessarily:
if you've hooked it up to a diesel generator.

You have, haven't you. . .:covereyes
;)

[rwguinn]

I have already thought about this awhile ago and I would say No.
So you have a new "motor", and it cannot be adapted to existing generator shafts? Interesting concept.
Or have you (he asked, not expecting a coherent answer) confused "Motor" with "Generator"?

[Dinwar]

If I had of done that then there would have been no time to invent the ''new VAWT''. :jaw-dropp:boggled:

I'm going to call BS on this. For two reasons. First, I grew up around engineers. They studied enough engineering and physics to do some pretty amazing things (my fater, for example, invented a new type of crane [U.S. Steel, the company he worked for at the time, holds the patent], for example). So it's obvious that the time it takes to study physics and engineering doesn't preclude applying that knowledge.

Second, your statements boils down to "If I took the time to learn how things work I won't be able to make things". Do you honestly not see the contradiction in this?

[likelystory]

:jaw-dropp:boggled:

I'm going to call BS on this. For two reasons. First, I grew up around engineers. They studied enough engineering and physics to do some pretty amazing things (my fater, for example, invented a new type of crane [U.S. Steel, the company he worked for at the time, holds the patent], for example). So it's obvious that the time it takes to study physics and engineering doesn't preclude applying that knowledge.

Second, your statements boils down to "If I took the time to learn how things work I won't be able to make things". Do you honestly not see the contradiction in this?

You still haven't obliged by telling me how big the footprint would be for a One Thousand Foot Tower of mine....

But seeing you are playing games,how about politely telling me the size of the footprint required for a MILE HIGH TOWER OF MINE (5280.23 Feet)..... and why it would be so.

And yes I have been using basic physics for my ''new VAWT''. I think your visualizing of my new VAWT is somehow not what I invented through moments of realization of the Revoulotion of Wind Power.

You require to think out of the box to design a whole new VAWT. That's how I got there :)

[ben m]

And yes I have been using basic physics for my ''new VAWT''.

So basic that you didn't get to energy conservation, I suppose. :)

And, less jokingly: far too basic to include aerodynamics or structural engineering.

[excaza]

So you want us to do your work for you? That's not how it works.

[likelystory]

So basic that you didn't get to energy conservation, I suppose. :)

And, less jokingly: far too basic to include aerodynamics or structural engineering.

Check out this video showing a very tall VAWT in Canada.... At 41 seconds you'll see the small footprint with guy-wires....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtVgYfvGghc&NR=1&feature=fvwp


This type of VAWT could easily have an ''over lapping footprint'' due to the guy-wires easily being placed near each others '' concrete base print''........ See I wasn't BS in theory about how my new VAWT can take up a very small space while being clustered together... Maybe 100 new VAWT's (My unique style) can be clumped together within a square kilometer.

[excaza]

At peak winds, your 'very tall' VAWT only produces 5 kilowatts.

Each of the two wind turbines by my house (70m diameter) produces 1500 kilowatts. They take up much less than a square kilometer.

You haven't yet solved the world energy crisis, care to try again?

[likelystory]

At peak winds, your 'very tall' VAWT only produces 5 kilowatts.

Each of the two wind turbines by my house (70m diameter) produces 1500 kilowatts. They take up much less than a square kilometer.

You haven't yet solved the world energy crisis, care to try again?

Did you like the Video,the one filmed in Ontario?

And my new VAWT's (clustered) will produce more than 1.5 megawatts (1500 kw).

Hey that VAWT Vid really got a response out of you ;)

[ben m]

This type of VAWT could easily have an ''over lapping footprint'' due to the guy-wires easily being placed near each others '' concrete base print''

Too close together side by side and they still interfere with one anothers' airflow. (Not as bad as the interference along the wind direction that you still haven't acknowledged.)

[ben m]

Check out this video showing a very tall VAWT in Canada.... At 41 seconds you'll see the small footprint with guy-wires....


That is a video of a very tiny turbine on top of a tall tower. Put a 10-meter rotor on that flimsy tower and it'll snap in half.

[likelystory]

Too close together side by side and they still interfere with one anothers' airflow. (Not as bad as the interference along the wind direction that you still haven't acknowledged.)

The new age VAWT's only need to be far enough apart to allow ultimum exploitation of the free wind ;)

Just like gardening, some plants you can cluster together while other plants require large row space.

[ben m]

And my new VAWT's (clustered) will produce more than 1.5 megawatts (1500 kw).

First: I think you made that number up. Show your calculation, or cite an professional engineer that signed off on it.

Second: It's not hard to get 1.5 MW out of the wind. That's one large HAWT. Do you think your 1.5 MW VAWT array is cheaper than one HAWT? Explain.

[likelystory]

First: I think you made that number up. Show your calculation, or cite an professional engineer that signed off on it.

Second: It's not hard to get 1.5 MW out of the wind. That's one large HAWT. Do you think your 1.5 MW VAWT array is cheaper than one HAWT? Explain.

produce ''more'' than 1.5 mw

I am talking Gigawatts and Terawatts.

I have another design for Horizontal yet it's more complicated and works alot better... The VAWT is the simple of the two designs. The Horizontal design gives me a mind ache.

[jsfisher]

produce ''more'' than 1.5 mw

I am talking Gigawatts and Terawatts.

I have another design for Horizontal yet it's more complicated and works alot better... The VAWT is the simple of the two designs. The Horizontal design gives me a mind ache.

Excellent evasion. How about we go with a few very specific questions:

What do you have in mind for the diameter and height of your blade assembly?
What do you predict will be the power output of a single VAWT of your design?

[likelystory]

Excellent evasion. How about we go with a few very specific questions:

What do you have in mind for the diameter and height of your blade assembly?
What do you predict will be the power output of a single VAWT of your design?

Blades at 100 ft high or even up to 2000 ft. The wind is more constant at greater altitudes.

The power would range from 20 mw - 10 tw depending on location. The scale of the towers plays a big part.

[Dinwar]

You still haven't obliged by telling me how big the footprint would be for a One Thousand Foot Tower of mine.... What, now it's a thousand feet? The goal post moves again....

Besides, you STILL haven't given us ANY data on what you're designing. You're the one who came here bragging about how he was going to get more energy out of the wind than the wind had.

This type of VAWT could easily have an ''over lapping footprint'' due to the guy-wires easily being placed near each others '' concrete base print''........ See I wasn't BS in theory about how my new VAWT can take up a very small space while being clustered together... Maybe 100 new VAWT's (My unique style) can be clumped together within a square kilometer. 1km^2 is pretty big. And anyway, the problem is that you can only get so close with the guy-wires (that's part of the footprint, by the way). And you're still not telling us how you're getting more energy out of the air than the air has (10x current production, which is at 90% efficiency).

produce ''more'' than 1.5 mw

I am talking Gigawatts and Terawatts.

I have another design for Horizontal yet it's more complicated and works alot better... The VAWT is the simple of the two designs. The Horizontal design gives me a mind ache. All still evaluations. You have not provided one single fact this entire discussion. And I'm not as generous as ben m is--I don't care what you SAY it will produce (we've demonstrated that you'll backpeddle and re-write your story as soon as someone starts talking about it). I want to know specifics about the design plans. How the motor is built, what the blades are made out of, what the bearings are made out of, etc.--basically, show your work for how you got those numbers. If you don't know this stuff you haven't invented anything, you've just been daydreaming. Useful to start a project, not worth arguing for 6 pages about.

[likelystory]

What, now it's a thousand feet? The goal post moves again....

Besides, you STILL haven't given us ANY data on what you're designing. You're the one who came here bragging about how he was going to get more energy out of the wind than the wind had.

1km^2 is pretty big. And anyway, the problem is that you can only get so close with the guy-wires (that's part of the footprint, by the way). And you're still not telling us how you're getting more energy out of the air than the air has (10x current production, which is at 90% efficiency).

All still evaluations. You have not provided one single fact this entire discussion. And I'm not as generous as ben m is--I don't care what you SAY it will produce (we've demonstrated that you'll backpeddle and re-write your story as soon as someone starts talking about it). I want to know specifics about the design plans. How the motor is built, what the blades are made out of, what the bearings are made out of, etc.--basically, show your work for how you got those numbers. If you don't know this stuff you haven't invented anything, you've just been daydreaming. Useful to start a project, not worth arguing for 6 pages about.



Never said I could get more energy out of what is already in the air.

People are not using the wind to it's full potenial, And I'm hoping to change all that with a small scale working model........ And I gave you the chance to tell me what size of the footprint should be for a Mile High Tower, yet you SNIPPED my comment short. Typical

[Dinwar]

Never said I could get more energy out of what is already in the air.

People are not using the wind to it's full potenial, And I'm hoping to change all that with a small scale working model........ And I gave you the chance to tell me what size of the footprint should be for a Mile High Tower, yet you SNIPPED my comment short. Typical You gave me a chance. How gracious. :rolleyes: How about telling us how you plan on extracting more energy out of the air than is in the wind, hm?

And it's been explained to you that to get 10x the energy from the wind you would have to extract more than is there.

Wind cannot supply the power needs of the human race. There literally isn't enough power in it.Not definitive, but considering sol invictus' CV I'm gonna go ahead and agree with him.
The "huge towers they have these days" are able to extract 70% to 80% of the theoretical maximum power based on the wind energy they intercept. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27_law) This is damning for your design. What it means is that to get 10x the power from the wind compared to what we get now you're going to have to get 700% to 800% of the theoretical maximum power from the wind. The maximum you can get is 100%. That means you're overshooting the power by 600% to 700%.

You haven't addressed this claim, except with some vague handwaving ("I'm not a scientist..." is how your response starts off).

[likelystory]

You gave me a chance. How gracious. :rolleyes: How about telling us how you plan on extracting more energy out of the air than is in the wind, hm?

And it's been explained to you that to get 10x the energy from the wind you would have to extract more than is there.

Not definitive, but considering sol invictus' CV I'm gonna go ahead and agree with him.
This is damning for your design. What it means is that to get 10x the power from the wind compared to what we get now you're going to have to get 700% to 800% of the theoretical maximum power from the wind. The maximum you can get is 100%. That means you're overshooting the power by 600% to 700%.

You haven't addressed this claim, except with some vague handwaving ("I'm not a scientist..." is how your response starts off).

No footprint theory.. How big is the footprint for a new VAWT of mine at say a Mile High? If you don't know then you aren't alone ;)

[ben m]

Never said I could get more energy out of what is already in the air.

Sure you did. You said you'd get 10x the power of a modern turbine of the same size. You said you could put a bunch of your turbines in a row and not lose wind speed.

You may not have wanted to violate the laws of physics, but it looks like you don't know enough physics to realize that you have.

[likelystory]

Sure you did. You said you'd get 10x the power of a modern turbine of the same size. You said you could put a bunch of your turbines in a row and not lose wind speed.

You may not have wanted to violate the laws of physics, but it looks like you don't know enough physics to realize that you have.

I never said what you have written.

[excaza]

produce ''more'' than 1.5 mw

I am talking Gigawatts and Terawatts.

So your design can extract gigawatts and terawatts of electricity from wind, per turbine?

[Craig4]

Okay, how do you get the wind to blow harder during peak consumptions times? This is the trouble with wind you can't make it blow harder when you need more power.

[rwguinn]

What, now it's a thousand feet? The goal post moves again....
Well, color ME flabbergasted, amazed, and incredulous...:D

Besides, you STILL haven't given us ANY data on what you're designing. You're the one who came here bragging about how he was going to get more energy out of the wind than the wind had.

1km^2 is pretty big. And anyway, the problem is that you can only get so close with the guy-wires (that's part of the footprint, by the way). And you're still not telling us how you're getting more energy out of the air than the air has (10x current production, which is at 90% efficiency).
Actually, it's not very big-only 3/8 of a Section. And only 100 meters apart. That means that for the 1000 foot high (doncha just love mixed units?), that means the guy wires are going to be at an angle (from horizontal) of about 80 degrees (Damn near straight up!--not much "guying action there...), assuming that the wire runs from the top of one tower to the center of the next.
How big is his turbine? I assume it needs some room inside the tower? That increases the guy angle...

All still evaluations. You have not provided one single fact this entire discussion. And I'm not as generous as ben m is--I don't care what you SAY it will produce (we've demonstrated that you'll backpeddle and re-write your story as soon as someone starts talking about it). I want to know specifics about the design plans. How the motor is built, what the blades are made out of, what the bearings are made out of, etc.--basically, show your work for how you got those numbers. If you don't know this stuff you haven't invented anything, you've just been daydreaming. Useful to start a project, not worth arguing for 6 pages about.
Whishful thinking-the opiate of the uneducated and uneducatible...

[jsfisher]

Blades at 100 ft high or even up to 2000 ft. The wind is more constant at greater altitudes.

That was not my question. I asked about the size of the blade assembly, not its height above the ground.

The power would range from 20 mw - 10 tw depending on location. The scale of the towers plays a big part.

I asked about the power output of a single VAWT of your design. Are you really claiming just one of your turbines will generate 10 terawatts of power?

[Dinwar]

likelystory, It's really dumb to claim you haven't said something when you're on an internet forum. People like me can actually check up on you. For instance:


The cost factor i something I can't put into figures,yet I believe in comparision to the huge towers they have these days it would be maybe 1/5 to 1/10 of the cost with an out put of x10 to x20... It's been rather mind blowing for me these last few months.

Think of a clusters of Flag Poles,the wind howls between them,if anything the wind picks up speed because of the flag poles close bunching.

20 meters apart, all you're going to get is prop wash.
20 meters is for the very big towers (hundred footers), for the smaller ones a spacing of 1 meter to 3 meters.

Need I go on?

As for the footprint of a mile-high tower, I merely went down that tangent to illustrate your complete lack of understanding of engineering an dhow to build things. It's been demonstrated. And until you put the effort forward to provide some actual data on these towers, I'm not going to waste my time educating you about how to build it.

[likelystory]

likelystory, It's really dumb to claim you haven't said something when you're on an internet forum. People like me can actually check up on you. For instance:







Need I go on?

As for the footprint of a mile-high tower, I merely went down that tangent to illustrate your complete lack of understanding of engineering an dhow to build things. It's been demonstrated. And until you put the effort forward to provide some actual data on these towers, I'm not going to waste my time educating you about how to build it.

I never said my Wind Machine would produce 10x the power for the same size ........ You believed what another skeptic said on the ''faith'' that he would be quoting correctly... ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[excaza]

So your design can extract gigawatts and terawatts of electricity from wind, per turbine?

[likelystory]

Well, color ME flabbergasted, amazed, and incredulous...:D
Actually, it's not very big-only 3/8 of a Section. And only 100 meters apart. That means that for the 1000 foot high (doncha just love mixed units?), that means the guy wires are going to be at an angle (from horizontal) of about 80 degrees (Damn near straight up!--not much "guying action there...), assuming that the wire runs from the top of one tower to the center of the next.
How big is his turbine? I assume it needs some room inside the tower? That increases the guy angle...
Whishful thinking-the opiate of the uneducated and uneducatible...

Mine are not to have guy-wires like the VAWT in Canada on the Video. I was merely showing how tall towers don't have a large footprint. Though the guy-wire approach can overlap into each others footprint zone.... multi shared footprint zone


My towers would be supported and braced by metal frame work, and shock absorbers. No tension guy-wires required to the VAWT itself.

The theory is to encage the clusters of VAWT's in a mega steel frame work.

[likelystory]

So your design can extract gigawatts and terawatts of electricity from wind, per turbine?

I would prefer you to acknowledge it as a Wind Machine. Thx :)

Actually Turbine is Ok to say :) :)

[excaza]

A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from a fluid flow and converts it into useful work.
You're designing a turbine.

Are you stating that each of your turbines can extract gigawatts and/or terawatts from wind?

[likelystory]

You're designing a turbine.

Are you stating that each of your turbines can extract gigawatts and/or terawatts from wind?

As a combined group... The 1000 footers would be able to be scaled up because of the airstream effect over 80 meters.


To have a network of clusters throughout adjoining Cities over vast distances to feed each other when the wind slows down in one or more areas.

[Dinwar]

Offhand, anyone know what the tallest free-standing lattice tower is? The ones I've dealt with are only a few hundred feet or so. I know we can get more than a thousand, but not without guy-wires.

As a combined group... The 1000 footers would be able to be scaled up because of the airstream effect over 80 meters.


To have a network of clusters throughout adjoining Cities over vast distances to feed each other when the wind slows down in one or more areas. So now it's not a tower, but clusters of towers?

This is why I hate dealing with dribbles of information. In six pages this is the first actual data you've given us, and it's not so much data as it is a general design concept. There's nothing we can use to evaluate your claims, other than to compare what we think you're talking about (and you're always coming up with new information, so we can never be sure what it is you're talking about) against pre-existing structures. This is not an honest conversation about the merits of an invention--there isn't enough data, in six pages of text, to begin to asses the merits of your design.

Do you want to talk about your turbines or not? If so, we need to see the data. If not, why are you here?

[likelystory]

Offhand, anyone know what the tallest free-standing lattice tower is? The ones I've dealt with are only a few hundred feet or so. I know we can get more than a thousand, but not without guy-wires.

So now it's not a tower, but clusters of towers?

This is why I hate dealing with dribbles of information. In six pages this is the first actual data you've given us, and it's not so much data as it is a general design concept. There's nothing we can use to evaluate your claims, other than to compare what we think you're talking about (and you're always coming up with new information, so we can never be sure what it is you're talking about) against pre-existing structures. This is not an honest conversation about the merits of an invention--there isn't enough data, in six pages of text, to begin to asses the merits of your design.

Do you want to talk about your turbines or not? If so, we need to see the data. If not, why are you here?

I spoke of clusters in previous posts........ I phoned Mark Z Jacobson a few minutes ago and asked him how much money it would be worth if the World was mainly run by Wind and some solar. He couldn't give me figures,yet said the health benifits would be great........ I think he's interested in people's welfare. And I mentioned about one thousand footers,and he said people are already working on high altitude wind machines.

He was honest to tell me that some people would ''not benifit'' if there was a change to a majority of Wind Power. I don't want people to suffer on my behalf by losing their current jobs that maintains their mortgage payments.

If I was to part sell or sell to the international community then for the ''job shift'' and re-training for new jobs associated with Alternative Energy Wind Power transition,then the Governments would HAVE to pay peoples wages. A useful Wind Power BAIL OUT or say REAL INVESTMENT.... Hey they payed the Bankers Billions and got nothing back except for dirt in your face with increased interest rates.

Mark seems convinced to run cars off electricity.

[Craig4]

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong here that the way to make wind power work isn't getting more energy out of the turbines it's finding a cheap and efficient way to store it. If someone could figure out a way to store large amounts of energy produced during high wind low demand times then we'd be onto something. I'm given to understand there are significant challenges in developing batteries on the scale you'd need for this.

[likelystory]

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong here that the way to make wind power work isn't getting more energy out of the turbines it's finding a cheap and efficient way to store it. If someone could figure out a way to store large amounts of energy produced during high wind low demand times then we'd be onto something. I'm given to understand there are significant challenges in developing batteries on the scale you'd need for this.

Yes! The storage of vast quantities of electricity to be had at anytime.

The purpose to achieve high altitude is to have constant energy without the storage issuses .Direct feed ;)

[likelystory]

A high altitude wind machine is like a hands on ''power socket'' in the sky.

Switch on and Switch off at leisure :)

[Verde]

Offhand, anyone know what the tallest free-standing lattice tower is? The ones I've dealt with are only a few hundred feet or so. I know we can get more than a thousand, but not without guy-wires.

Does the Eiffel Tower count? 1063ft.

The old US microwave backbone towers were about 250ft. There may have been some taller ones, but I don't recall seeing one.

The UK Chain Home towers were 360ft.
http://www.greatbaddowparishcouncil.co.uk/Great%20Baddow%20Mast.pdf

Nothing to do with VAWT, so getting a bit off topic.

V.

[Dinwar]

Not exactly. We have precisely three bits of data on this amazing new technology. 1) The blades spin vertically. 2) The windmills are clustered. 3) These towers will range from ____ to 1,000 feet high. The first one is a non-issue--how the blades are oriented will affect how efficient it is, but neither vertical nor horizontal is a major issue. The second is insane. The third can lead to an interesting set of questions.

[excaza]

So how much power does an individual turbine generate?

[likelystory]

Not exactly. We have precisely three bits of data on this amazing new technology. 1) The blades spin vertically. 2) The windmills are clustered. 3) These towers will range from ____ to 1,000 feet high. The first one is a non-issue--how the blades are oriented will affect how efficient it is, but neither vertical nor horizontal is a major issue. The second is insane. The third can lead to an interesting set of questions.

Clustered is workable,not insane.

[jsfisher]

That was not my question. I asked about the size of the blade assembly, not its height above the ground.

I asked about the power output of a single VAWT of your design. Are you really claiming just one of your turbines will generate 10 terawatts of power?

You seem to have missed this.

[Dinwar]

Clustered is workable,not insane. To the extent allowed by fluid dynamics, this is correct. Putting them 1-3 meters apart and still expecting to generate power is insane.

[likelystory]

To the extent allowed by fluid dynamics, this is correct. Putting them 1-3 meters apart and still expecting to generate power is insane.

Not when they are small scale on roof tops on houses or tennament of flats or small commercial buildings.

[rwguinn]

Not when they are small scale on roof tops on houses or tennament of flats or small commercial buildings.
Oh, goody.
Not 1 mile, not 3000 feet, not 1000 feet, not 200 feet.
Just what the **** are we talking about here. Can you stick to a subject?

[likelystory]

Oh, goody.
Not 1 mile, not 3000 feet, not 1000 feet, not 200 feet.
Just what the **** are we talking about here. Can you stick to a subject?

The subject hasn't changed. Various size VAWT's .... Accomadating for different requirements.

But you have read the previous posts of this thread?

[rwguinn]

The subject hasn't changed. Various size VAWT's .... Accomadating for different requirements.

But you have read the previous posts of this thread?
Yep.
But it is obvious that you have not...

[likelystory]

Yep.
But it is obvious that you have not...

Then show the quotes to back up your stirring :)

The VAWT's do a stirring motion..... round and round ;)

[ben m]

The subject hasn't changed. Various size VAWT's .... Accomadating for different requirements.


Likelystory, other people have already invented 1 meter VAWTs, and 5 meter VAWTs and 100 meter VAWTs. You didn't.

Other people have already invented the idea of "buy several turbines and install all of them." You didn't.

Do you want to talk about what you think you did? Then you don't need to tell us that turbines can be multiple sizes. You don't need to tell us that you can put in more than one of them. You don't need to tell us about how great wind-power is. That's all other people's stuff. Talk about your[I] new stuff.

You need to tell us the (a) critical dimensions, (b) power output per unit, and (c) cost per unit of [I]one particular design. Which design? Whichever one you want to talk about.

As it is, you're doing a very good job convincing everyone that you're an innumerate daydreamer, not an inventor.

[likelystory]

Likelystory, other people have already invented 1 meter VAWTs, and 5 meter VAWTs and 100 meter VAWTs. You didn't.

Other people have already invented the idea of "buy several turbines and install all of them." You didn't.

Do you want to talk about what you think you did? Then you don't need to tell us that turbines can be multiple sizes. You don't need to tell us that you can put in more than one of them. You don't need to tell us about how great wind-power is. That's all other people's stuff. Talk about your[I] new stuff.

You need to tell us the (a) critical dimensions, (b) power output per unit, and (c) cost per unit of [I]one particular design. Which design? Whichever one you want to talk about.

As it is, you're doing a very good job convincing everyone that you're an innumerate daydreamer, not an inventor.

I never claimed to invent the VAWT... I'm talking about a super new VAWT in comparission to the original VAWT's .

[ben m]

I never claimed to invent the VAWT... I'm talking about a super new VAWT in comparission to the original VAWT's .

For the 8th time: 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]

For the 8th time: 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."

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!