Not watched the video, so many make similar wild claims flying straight in the face of physics that it's never worth the effort but the seemingly primitive water pump of 100 years ago is actually quite an efficient design ideally suited to it's purpose and highly relevant to wind power today.Hillhater said:Utter bull5hit!
Really sophisticated test proceedure !!!
Not even a mention of the generator itself ?
And a wind turbine like was used on remote properties to pump water 100 yrs ago
Stan, are you not aware of the Direct Drive wind turbines , in common use world wide for many years.stan.distortion said:.....the seemingly primitive water pump of 100 years ago is actually quite an efficient design ideally suited to it's purpose and highly relevant to wind power today.
.......
You don't see it used simply because it's slow turning, everything today is aimed at directly producing electricity based on older generator designs, ones that don't do a whole lot at low speeds and step up gearing is notoriously difficult with wind power (it needs to be extremely heavy to stand the peak loads and so is far too inefficient at normal loads)
Chalo said:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Put up or shut up. This sector is overrun with bullshit artists already.
ZeroEm said:Ducted does capture the air flow and increase the velocity. Many draw backs, size and tracking the wind direction. Not cheap.
Generator said:Chalo said:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Put up or shut up. This sector is overrun with bullshit artists already.
In video, OP shows results, are those fake?
Chalo said:Generator said:Chalo said:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Put up or shut up. This sector is overrun with bullshit artists already.
In video, OP shows results, are those fake?
Who knows? The proof needs to come from a trustworthy party other than the one making an unlikely claim.
I have no idea what that is a photo of.......but i am sure it is not a wind turbine ?topspeed said:Big spinner also helps..but has to be counted in capture area as well.
miilun_spinneri.jpg
Hillhater said:I have no idea what that is a photo of.......but i am sure it is not a wind turbine ?topspeed said:Big spinner also helps..but has to be counted in capture area as well.
miilun_spinneri.jpg
Ducted does capture the air flow and increase the velocity. Many draw backs, size and tracking the wind direction. Not cheap.
Basics of Wind Energy:
Kinetic Energy of wind is: 1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity
momentum in the wind = mass x velocity
Power per unit area = KE * momentum --> MV2 *MV
So Power that can be extracted from the wind goes as velocity cubed (V3)
27 times more power is in a wind blowing at 60 mph than one blowing at 20 mph
For average atmospheric conditions of density and moisture contant:
Power per sq. meter = .0006 V3
velocity measured in meters per second
Power then measured in KILOwatts
1 meter per second is approximately 2 mph
20 mph wind =10 m/s --> Power generated equals
.0006 * 103 = .0006 * 1000 = .6 KILO watts per square meter
which is 600 watts per square meter
this is identical to average solar power per square meter
Windmills can not operate at 100% efficiency because the structure itself impedes the flow of the wind
Theoretical maximum efficiency is 59%
Picaresque Dutch Windmill (4=arms) = 16%
Rotary, multiblade = 30%
High speed propeller (vertical) = 42%
Clearly, wind power is a highly variable source and hence energy storage is crucial.
Rotary type windmills have high torque and are useful for pumping water
High speed propeller types have low torque and are most efficient at high rotational velocities --> useful for generation of electricity
DogDipstick said:59% is the maximum kinetic recovery from ANY wind design.
period.
Except when you do this:
Ducted does capture the air flow and increase the velocity. Many draw backs, size and tracking the wind direction. Not cheap.
I have seen some very efficient turbine designed. I have also seen them when they blow up and take out the building, throwing 100 ton pieces of metal the lengths of a football field.
Lol.
Basics of Wind Energy:
Kinetic Energy of wind is: 1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity
momentum in the wind = mass x velocity
Power per unit area = KE * momentum --> MV2 *MV
So Power that can be extracted from the wind goes as velocity cubed (V3)
27 times more power is in a wind blowing at 60 mph than one blowing at 20 mph
For average atmospheric conditions of density and moisture contant:
Power per sq. meter = .0006 V3
velocity measured in meters per second
Power then measured in KILOwatts
1 meter per second is approximately 2 mph
20 mph wind =10 m/s --> Power generated equals
.0006 * 103 = .0006 * 1000 = .6 KILO watts per square meter
which is 600 watts per square meter
this is identical to average solar power per square meter
Windmills can not operate at 100% efficiency because the structure itself impedes the flow of the wind
Theoretical maximum efficiency is 59%
Picaresque Dutch Windmill (4=arms) = 16%
Rotary, multiblade = 30%
High speed propeller (vertical) = 42%
Clearly, wind power is a highly variable source and hence energy storage is crucial.
Rotary type windmills have high torque and are useful for pumping water
High speed propeller types have low torque and are most efficient at high rotational velocities --> useful for generation of electricity
topspeed said:Then there is ANEW which claims 74% efficiency:
Chalo said:topspeed said:Then there is ANEW which claims 74% efficiency:
Try to distinguish between claims, credible claims, and facts. Everything in the alternative energy sector makes much more sense when you do.
topspeed said:Chalo said:topspeed said:Then there is ANEW which claims 74% efficiency:
Try to distinguish between claims, credible claims, and facts. Everything in the alternative energy sector makes much more sense when you do.
I am just wondering how a company that has operated since 1989 can advertise 74% efficiency...if it is not true.