dougselsam | 2021-11-22 10:02:39 UTC | #103 This reminjds me of when, as a lad, I asked my mom why they called it "drag racing". Her reply: "Maybe because they have to drag their feet to stop?" I believe the real answer is they were racing on "the local drag" meaning a strip of street people "drag" up and down "trolling" for some fun on a Saturday night. I think the last person to use foot-dragging to stop was Fred Flintstone. As I have pointed out more than once, the terms "lift mode" and "drag mode" have been in use for decades (or more) in wind energy. Kite-reeling would normally fall under the Savonius concept, except for using lift to artificially increase the area from which to extract "drag". The tether is "dragged" from the drum. How do you know? Because it is dragged out at less than the speed of the wind itself (?) The notion that newbies to wind energy decided in their innocent naivety to name the Makani concept using two levels of "lift" to generate electricity as a "drag machine" (because it "drags" its propellers through the air) is, I would say, about as astute and accurate as my young mom's musings about "drag racing" being so-called because the driver drags his (or her) feet to stop - just not accurate. Really, to my way of thinking, and I'm not saying it is correct, just my impression, all these "scientific" "papers" are meaningless until someone can demonstrate an economical energy solution. Right now in my neighborhood, people are swapping out rebuilt Bergey turbines for failed machines. Bergey turbines have enjoyed the reputation as "the best" or "most reliable" turbine in "small-wind" as long as I can remember. (Yet I can show you many pictures of missing blades, destroyed turbines, etc.) ![IMG_0175 Bergey Dropped|669x500](upload://x8fLvlJeDVpd3gn3o0p3QpTi1r3.jpeg) They have been the choice for "scientists" for any project such as one that proved hydrogen as energy storage returns something like 3% of the energy put in, you know, learning about reality. One fatal flaw of the Bergey line has always been the furling cable breaks within the first few years of operation, so you can't furl it in case you need to shut it down, or in preparation for an oncoming severe storm. Seems to happen to every single one of them. In all the years of NREL, Bergey, and a lot of installers helping to refine the Bergey design,, no "engineer" or "scientist" had ever solved the furling cable failure issue. It was only recently that someone noticed the problem was the turbine trying to "push" the flexible cable into its "jacket" or conduit. As the old saying goes, "You can't push a rope". The cable would fold instead of going into its jacket every time the turbine furled on its own, and the constant bending of the steel strands would reliably cause the cable to fail, even if nobody ever used it. Well after 40 years of this scrutiny by the world's leading "scientists", the manufacturer, and everyone else, someone finally figured out you could add a spring or a weight, to keep tension on the cable from the ground, supposedly solving the problem. Looking back, this seems so obvious in retrospect, yet for years even the manufacturer's tech support would tell you "Ahh, don't worry about the furling cable - you don't need it - they always break anyway - we just added it because at one point some municipality wouldn't allow an installation unless it had a way to shut down the turbine" - that sort of thing. So in all those years of scrutiny of the Bergey machines, nobody had stumbled across something that basic. And Bergey is about the only survivor in the small-wind "industry" since solar got so cheap. That is the reality of wind energy at least at a small scale, and I doubt if any scientific paper was involved in finding or even recognizing such a simple solution to what should have been an easily-identified cause of cable failure. There is an old saying in wind energy about the modern wind energy industry having been kick-started by a proverbial "farmer with a welder". Seems to still be in play. In my experience, the role of "science" in wind energy seems to be more about analyzing and fine-tuning things made to work by practitioners in the field, rather than contributing actual solutions in terms of basic configurations. If AWE is still at the point of trying to figure out the difference between lift mode and drag mode, I don't even know what to say. Roddy I would not worry about what anyone "says". Talk is cheap. If something works, it works. If not, then not. No idle bystander's opinion will change that, no matter what their supposed credentials.. Don't let it worry you. It is not a true factor, and does not matter in the least. :) ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-11-23 20:29:30 UTC | #104 [quote="dougselsam, post:103, topic:1610"] As I have pointed out more than once, the terms “lift mode” and “drag mode” have been in use for decades (or more) in wind energy. Kite-reeling would normally fall under the Savonius concept, except for using lift to artificially increase the area from which to extract “drag”. The tether is “dragged” from the drum. [/quote] This is true, but AWES were studied as aerial devices before being considered wind turbines. What do the means envisaged for kite-reeling and those implemented for the wind turbine have in common? ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-11-24 15:17:41 UTC | #105 Hello Pierre A kite-reeling system and a Savonius turbine have this in common: A swept area that is "dragged" downwind. then must return upwind, using power to return upwind. The downwind travel during the power stroke tends to reduce the power output by reducing the relative windspeed. But the Savonius turbine has the advantage of steady, continuous output rather than intermittent, pulsating output. When you see any new wind energy scheme, notice the tendency to think "this time it's different!" The proponents of any new scheme tend to believe that none of the lessons learned in the last couple thousand years of wind energy apply to them. For instance they tend to think that showing people a photo of 50 people, all drawing a hefty salary, should convince the public that they have a serious effort. And the general public may indeed be convinced by the group-selfie, but people who know wind energy know that there is only a single surviving manufacturer in "small wind", and that survivor only survived by heavy government subsidies, heavy government regulation now at all levels that effectively outlaw all the competing companies, and a very lean workforce of just a very few people. Rather than trying to see how MANY mouths they can feed, they would be hard-pressed to hire even a single extra person, maintaining a skeleton crew, with no extra money to hire a single "extra" person. An average household uses maybe 1000 dollars of electricity per year, or maybe 2000 for heavy users of electricity. Any system that costs more than that could only be rationalized by artificial financial support, and would therefore not constitute an actual energy solution. There is no room for 50 people whose combined "talents" produce nothing useful for any purpose. No small wind company who expects to survive would be issuing press-releases about "renting office space". Such a situation of needing to support that many "office workers" would in itself spell doom for any such startup company. Any small company that expects to grow needs to have a natural built-in potential profitability or at least a clear path to profitability. If they can't power a single home with AWE, why would anyone believe they are about to power hundreds, thousands, or millions of homes? Well as I've observed over the years, the reason they would believe it is because their main source of information is the hype issued by the companies, presenting (so far anyway) a one-sided, unrealistic story. The "Dr. Pater Harrops" of the world (and it goes downhill from there), simply have no experience in wind energy to understand the repetitive and typical nature of the claims they are seeing, let alone recognizing claims even more absurd than any previous example. But, just as a thousand wannabes chasing the Savonius concept based on the attractiveness of its simplicity do not ruin the case for legitimate wind energy technology, the many failures of wannabe AWE practitioners in no way negates the viability of AWE as a concept. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-12-02 10:24:44 UTC | #106 OK now realizing that nuclear fusion is just a fancy way of boiling water, there are several fusion energy companies emerging, funded by the usual billionaires. One is called "Helion". If fusion gets traction, AWE and many other clean energy efforts might be doomed. But don't worry too much about Helion. How can we tell? They have a group selfie! You've seen the rest of that movie! :) ![image|630x372](upload://l0TSC5ACvCQyXtymAuwxOhP4bDu.jpeg) https://www.geekwire.com/2021/interest-fusion-energy-ignites-helion-lands-500m-openai-ceo-facebook-co-founder/ ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-12-16 17:52:28 UTC | #107 OK this is in "News Coverage" because even though it is positioned as "news", actual news is about things that really happen: # Hydrogen Airships Promise Zero Emissions at One-Quarter the Price of Plane Cargo LINK: https://interestingengineering.com/hydrogen-airship-zero-emissions-at-quarter-the-price-of-a-cargo-plane Note how this "story" checks all the boxes: "fight climate change" "hydrogen","zero emissions" "a quarter the cost", "increased payload" - well if it were powered by AWE, it might be zero emissions. Anyway, maybe they should add "3-D printing", "provides broadband", ya know... Now, I've always been a huge fan of huge blimps - or just blimps and airships in general, and this article sounds very exciting! Except for one thing: I've been reading similar articles for over 50 years, and never seen one come true. There is an announcement like this every 3 or 4 years it seems. They've all sounded "very exciting" with no apparent reason why they won't actually happen, but they never do. In our somewhat similar field, we are used to this. It's always the same thing: big press-release, followed by.... NOTHING. I'd like to think this one will be different, but the pattern is 100%, and undeniable... Oh well, it's fun to dream. I hope this one comes true. (But I won't hold my breath!) :) Update: I checked out their website: https://h2clipper.com/ They do in fact check more trendy boxes: 1) Providing wi-fi to Africa and underdeveloped regions 2) delivering hydrogen fuel as cargo 3) disaster relief - how could I have left out "disaster relief"?!?! Seems like every press-release breakthrough has such obligatory "attributes". "Just in case" it is not useful for its intended purpose, they have a "plan B" (providing wi-fi - think "Altaeros" - after all that AWE hype, they now have one blimp, powered by an extension cord from the ground (diesel?), and purport to be the answer for bringing wi-fi to undeveloped regions...) And "just in case" Plan B doesn't work out, they can deliver hydrogen as cargo... And "just in case" that falls flat on its face, they will be available for "disaster relief"! Did they miss anything? What about a group selfie? I haven't checked. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-12-18 16:44:17 UTC | #108 Hi Doug, Perhaps an AWE possibility with a design something like LTA Windpower? On the website the announced air speed is 280 km/h (78 m/s) , so likely leading to a high glide ratio, hence perhaps the possibility of a high angle of elevation, and a constant positioning in altitude to avoid takeoffs and landings, except in the event of a big storm. That said the fastest speed for an airship is only 115 km/h (32 m/s), so far below 280 km/h. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-speed-for-an-airship Basically airship could be the simplest solution, above all if the risk of hydrogen use is strongly mitigated: a lighter than air with also aerodynamic lift (wings) carrying one or more conventional wind turbine(s) ... ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-12-30 18:45:35 UTC | #109 A "designer" solves wind energy.... again... https://newatlas.com/energy/wind-turbine-wall-doucet/ Article includes a quote from Mike Barnard. Know-nothings, "improving" an art about which they have not the slightest clue. Some things never change. :) ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-12-30 18:45:35 UTC | #110 Another M. [Barnard](https://forum.awesystems.info/t/barnards-predictions/256)'s article: *Dodgy wind? Why "innovative" turbines are often anything but* https://newatlas.com/dodgy-wind-turbines/27876/?itm_source=newatlas&itm_medium=article-body ------------------------- Freeflying | 2021-12-31 18:24:30 UTC | #111 https://youtu.be/WJ11WvTXmJA The designer led to Robert Murray smith designing a whole bunch of experimental designs. The original didn’t work but his bodging effort are plain to see. Plenty of room for design exploration. He even made a wind wall with pc fans which I find to be awesome. There an obvious threshold to meet but with a little effort anything’s possible. Much like baking cakes or a good roast. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-01-03 15:59:33 UTC | #112 HYPE CYCLES & tech: Saw this opinion on hype cycles: https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-cycle while reading this article by a helicopter developer about EVTOL "flying car" type vehicles. https://newatlas.com/aircraft/hill-helicopter-evtol-counterpoint/ The example they use is the Joby flying car effort. Joby was an early AWE player, but quickly gave up on that idea. (No axe to grind here, just thought the articles were relevant and interesting for AWE.) ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-01-29 05:21:44 UTC | #113 When you live on a ranch in Southern California, you might be a former president, or you might be me. Instead of Santa Barbara, I'm in the high desert though... Well one thing you learn pretty quick is how many helium balloons there are out there, flying every day, because you will keep finding them on your land. Today I saw something white out in front of my house, walked over and picked it up, and it turned out to be a totally tattered-to-shreds balloon. Maybe it was it a high altitude wind experiment. ![tattered balloon find|375x500](upload://ioGuPR4pw1gNYTR5nAQFqeY9TKC.jpeg) Can anyone guess why this balloon is SO tattered? Well, I have a possible explanation: I think it probably rose to an extremely high altitude, where the air pressure was very low, and so it expanded to several times its normal size, and possibly even FROZE, because it is winter AND it gets very cold at high altitudes, and at some point, it got SO big it just totally exploded like nothing ever seen by mankind, and was ripped to shreds! After that, it fell to the comparatively low elevation of 3600 feet, coming to rest in my front yard. So let that be a lesson to you crazy kids - any high-altitude balloon is a potential ticking time-bomb. It could explode at any moment, without warning, and totally shred itself (and maybe you) to absolute smithereens! So AWE people, be careful with your high altitude balloons, and for God's sake, stay away from the darn jet stream, before you really get hurt! Oh also, as long as I'm posting photos, and speaking of totally shredding, here is a guitar I picked up recently: ![GUITAR SAMICK 335|375x500](upload://gn2MRJDXIhEYtrdK5msvBRA3IcR.jpeg) ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-01-29 05:24:18 UTC | #114 Happened to run across this. Thought someone might find it interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-03 12:40:23 UTC | #115 Seems redundant to celebrate merely flying a kite in a figure-8 after all these years of AWE attempts. I also note when I checked the website https://www.kitekraft.de/about the "papers" use the term "drag" to describe a machine that uses lift in many ways. In wind energy, the term "drag" as applied to any device or design (such as a Savonius cup-anemometer-type machine), traditionally refers to working surfaces being "dragged" (or pushed by brute force) to **travel downwind**, to distinguish from the normal use of "lift" (airfoils) to produce power directly. I do understand how the newbies think "drag" refers to "dragging a propeller **upwind** through the air" but the term "drag" or "drag device" with regard to wind energy is already long-established. It means working surfaces traveling **downwind**, NOT **upwind**. A closer design space to a traditional "drag" machine is kite-reeling, where the lift of airfoils is nonetheless used to create a "drag" type of machine (working surfaces **travel downwind**). Reminds me of my mom's attempted explanation of the term "drag-racing" - "because they drag their feet to stop?" Nice try Mom! :) ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-03 12:40:23 UTC | #116 [quote="dougselsam, post:115, topic:1610"] I do understand how the newbies think “drag” refers to “dragging a propeller **upwind** through the air” but the term “drag” or “drag device” with regard to wind energy is already long-established. [/quote] True, but the technology of AWES is different. Almost all the scientific publications are based on M. Loyd's seminal paper: "Crosswind Kite Power". So they qualify fly-gen crosswind AWES as drag devices, because the thrust of the turbines onboard adds drag, precisely 50% drag added to the drag of the kite and tether for an optimized device, the kite speed becoming 2/3 with turbines, as for reeling (yo-yo) AWES but for another cause which is tether downwind move at 1/3 wind speed for a more or less optimized device. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-03 12:40:23 UTC | #117 [quote="PierreB, post:116, topic:1610"] True, but the technology of AWES **is different**. Almost all the scientific publications are based on M. Loyd’s seminal paper: “Crosswind Kite Power” [/quote] Yeah, well, I've never read that patent. Know why? Because everything in it is obvious, and always has been. Anyone in wind energy has always known that too. Only people unfamiliar with wind energy would be impressed with such a pedestrian observation as the idea that a kite could produce power flying across the wind. Meanwhile as I've been saying for 13 years, if you have to SAY "crosswind" it means you are not familiar with wind energy since all wind power has been crosswind for 1000 years or more. And by the standards of AWE, a regular lift-based wind turbine would qualify as "drag-based", since the generator causes "drag", slowing the blades to a fraction of their unloaded **crosswind** speed. All that shows is that Loyd was one more newbie to wind energy who knew nothing of the established terminology. Nothing more. Every newbie to wind energy thinks their idea makes things "different". Just like the stock market - there is a well-known saying in investments: "This time it's different!". It;s when newbie investors hit a lucky strike and are making so much money they think their investment can never go down. The veterans try to warn them, but the newbie will insist "this time it;s different". I've explained all this about lift and drag many times now. It still seems like nobody even understands the first thing about wind energy here: A lift-based machine versus a drag-based machine, according to well-established terminology. I feel like I've done what I could to educate the enthusiastic perpetual newbies in AWE who have yet to power a single house after well over a billion dollars wasted so far and counting. At least people are having fun! :) ------------------------- tallakt | 2022-02-03 12:40:23 UTC | #118 Maybe we should coin a new terminology for AWE? I agree the naming is odd, though in AWE it is quite precise. My guess is that it is named after which direction relative to the lift and drag of the kite that the harvesting force is generated. Maybe something like «Downwind AWE» and «Braking AWE» would indeed be better. Had we only said this in the 70s it might have stuck I think saying Loyd is a noob is not very accurate. At least he put in words something that was not really common knowledge at the time, even for wind people ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-03 12:40:23 UTC | #119 Tallak: Here's a photo of a 1500-year-old windfarm ![image|690x460](upload://6M3IdS3sTDz4fhKfQmQRs3sRHpT.jpeg) LINK: https://www.travel-zone-greece.com/blog/the-iconic-windmills-of-patmos/ What is it, if not kites traveling crosswind? The problem with AWE perpetual noobs, or at least the worst examples, is they are allergic to facts, ignorant of the art of wind energy and its multi-thousand-year path of development. Wanting to make up their own terminology at odds with established terminology in wind energy, without even being aware of that fact, is just one "canary-in-the-coalmine" of many. To then be in denial of such a simple fact when it is pointed out is another canary, but by that point it is expected. Noobs just act like noobs. Some things never change. I used to wonder the same thing as a kid - how could "lift" be pushing the blades forward? Shouldn't it just push them back? Takes a while - you gotta get up to speed on what has been learned in these thousands of years. In wind energy most noobs dig in their heels and stay that way. It;s just the way it is, and has always been, as long as I've been paying attention anyway. ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-03 12:40:23 UTC | #120 Hi Doug, Wind turbines do not move (even considering that the blades rotate), unlike the crosswind AWES. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-03 12:40:23 UTC | #121 [quote="PierreB, post:120, topic:1610"] Wind turbines do not move [/quote] Wind turbine blades DO move: 100% crosswind, in a circular path. That has been in effect for well over a thousand years. Before that (Ancient Persia), they moved in a circular path downwind and upwind, which is known as a "drag" machine. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-06 09:04:30 UTC | #122 https://youtu.be/VKYvVJ3_ssI Just wanted to through this out there. As I know it has potential uses in Awe. Be that VAWT, HAWT. Newton’s third law. Magnetic induction Lenz law Faraday law. Magnetohydrodymanics Electromagnetism https://youtu.be/-DQ2ghdSn4E At 3:18 minutes in it has a spinning top with fluid inside. Much like a previous idea I dropped in AWE with https://forum.awesystems.info/t/generator-using-gravitational-potential-kinetic-energy-with-falling-mass-of-ball-bearings-or-magnetic-fluid/1799 It must be possible to have spinning top version Working on centrifugal forces. Combined with the levitation. To come up with something almost Sifi esque in nature. I’m aware of maglev generator. Even one appear in the Thor movie intro at 2:42 minutes. It just a question of how AWE wishes to advance. You could end up with something look like. ![image|666x500](upload://5uU0IdrBladxZ2TK7vZ4WO2Fum4.jpeg) See blue arrow for reference. Also https://youtu.be/K0DH0qebtaE I’m not sure if AWE has a magnetically coupled design. I’ve seen design of some VAWT turbines have levitation elements. As well as kinetic storage systems using maglev elements. So my question is is this something AWE could look at? Especially because of its sustainability factors, easy of manufacturing and assembly, scaling potentials, and so on. I just like to throw this one In the ring and see what people think. ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2022-02-06 09:32:08 UTC | #123 [quote="Freeflying, post:122, topic:1610"] I just like to throw this one In the ring and see what people think. [/quote] I think it is only tangentially related to AWE or not a well-developed idea and so shouldn't be a topic on its own, to avoid cluttering the forum. You could post ideas like this in a mega-thread of all your ideas or in a topic like this slow chat. Feel free to discuss this if you think you have a better solution or if you disagree. Nice videos. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-06 10:02:02 UTC | #124 Fair shout. I through it out there as more of a could we? Hopefully to ask someone more familiar with the concept. I recognised the potential. Wasn’t too sure of pitfalls and where safety concerns would arise. Well just going to leave this here and see what happens. ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2022-02-08 17:41:45 UTC | #125 [quote="Freeflying, post:122, topic:1610"] . I’ve seen design of some VAWT turbines have levitation elements. As well as kinetic storage systems using maglev elements. [/quote] Link?[s][/s][s][/s][s][/s] ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-08 18:52:22 UTC | #126 https://youtu.be/-_h1ZJPf3YA https://youtu.be/F4lCgaCSQHY https://youtu.be/yhu3s1ut3wM I presume it doesn’t matter what axis it happen in. The principles are the same. There are supercooled examples out here with superconducting elements. One example but there are many more https://www.furukawa.co.jp/en/release/2015/kenkai_150415.html just for example. I know this is where I start to tread unknowns. but aware that it could be adapted some how? Thought it worth a shout. ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2022-02-08 20:58:21 UTC | #127 You seem to be talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing That is just another choice you have to make when you come to it, do the advantages and disadvantages of active magnetic bearings make them a better choice than other kinds of bearings? During prototyping and in airborne use probably no, as I can quickly and cheaply buy a bearing that will work. ## tim hunkin - BEARINGS -The Secret Life of Components - a series of guides for makers and designers - Episode 8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyRzGFHWnIU&list=PLtaR0lZhSyANYB0Xxb9OSp47pHuQmj3Ol&index=9 ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-08 21:46:47 UTC | #128 Yes that was a good vid. I’m thinking more about lower maintenance cost. Standard bearing will ware over time. If there’s only a single point of ware. It much easy to fix in the field Than running back a forth to a shop. I’m sure there a few hard waring rock in a field that might do that job. https://youtu.be/gnaZD1699qQ is just another example. It also give you the opportunity of a high output from a low input. I know there will be limitations due to inductive forces and material stresses. Most of that is down to particle collisions with the magnetic field. Like a diesel engine but with magnets and conductors. The harder the magnetic field strikes a conductor the more heat will be produced due to induction. Which does lead to fried electronic. Obviously the risk of it melting in high wind increases without cooling. Low friction is alway a good way to go. Siemens have a generator that is totally based around this very idea. I believe that was in the megawatt range. https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/offerings/power-generation/generators/sgen-100a.html If I read the specs right almost 99% efficient. I’m aware that it uses sensors to detect movement in the rotor and will send a corrective signal to the coils. Even small scale definitely would be worth a play with. Can be a simple as a copper cylinder resting over a magnetic core. I’m not aware of awe using a design like this but I was aware it is being use in other places. Ultimately my original question was see if AWE could take a small element of one technology and incorporate into a design. With a looming oil crisis, and import being delayed. thinking about others way to achieve the final product must be a plus. Even if that means a concrete at pad with coils embedded into it. with a vawt turbine on top with poly magnetic arrangements. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-08 23:30:38 UTC | #129 Hey Freeflying: Your online name reminds me of hang gliding, which falls under what is often referred to as free flight. Ever hang glide or paraglide? I remember a Windpower trade show where some Asian team had paid for a booth where they demonstrated a vertical-axis turbine, about 4 feet tall, on a table, powered by a household electric fan. Little did they know their exhibit was referred to as "the comedy section" by all the real wind people attending the event. People would go check it out for fun when they got bored, It was not generating any electricity, just spinning. It was a Savonius type machine like the one in the first video. What it demonstrated was that clueless people with no sense of reality could raise enough money to fly across the Pacific and rent a booth at a trade-show. This sort of wind newbie typically makes all the beginner mistakes, but promotes them as breakthroughs. Everyone thought it was funny, - oh and I almost forgot to mention OF COURSE it had magnetic bearings! Why? because when people don't know anything about making power, they are easily distracted by "shiny objects", such as magnetic bearings. In reality, such a machine can use ball-bearings without excessive drag. They are choosing the least-powerful type of turbine to begin with, so if they were even tuned into the CONCEPT of actually generating any power, they would not be messing around with Savonius turbines. Savonius turbines are just (seemingly) easy to understand, easy to build, and so beginners and know-nothings in general are drawn to them. They like something they can comprehend, except what they DO NOT comprehend are the facts that: 1) The moving wind reactive surfaces travel at half the wind speed DOWNWIND, reducing the incident wind speed by 1/2, which reduces force to 1/4 and power to 1/8. 2) further losses are incurred by the blades traveling upwind, slowing the rotor even more. Experienced people know these machines are almost never attached to a meter, and if they are, it is always a VOLTAGE meter. Why? Because it is easy to generate a voltage with a weak turbine since if you generate no current, there is no power being generated, so the beginner can pat themselves on the back that their little junk-pile actually SPINS, which they imagine is a huge accomplishment. By the time they see VOLTAGE on a meter, they imagine they have conquered global warming and won the lottery, all in one fell swoop I'm going to try to say this nicely, but, from the viewpoint of wind veterans, only a complete idiot would waste their time and money applying an unnecessary maglev bearing to such a waste of time, but it is not uncommon. Why? Because "maglev" sounds "scientific". In reality, it is "a solution in search of a problem", and a true "no-brainer" suggestion often made by newbies and beginners for ALL types of wind turbines. Since they have never MADE any power, they have no idea what factors actually affect power output, so if it might consume 1 Watt to spin a bearing, and their terrible-design turbine would be lucky to generate 2 Watts, - wow, they doubled the output by using maglev bearings! Again, I'm gonna try to be nice about this, but every time I see a post from you, it promotes another typicl beginner/newbie wrong idea, over and over. In a REAL wind energy forum, you would be shouted down over just about every post. This particular forum is similarly populated by people without much, if any, real experience in wind energy, and it is a place for new ideas, so nobody is shouting you down here, but it is mainly because of the general lack of experience here, just so you know. It would be nice for you, if you are truly interested in wind energy, to get up to speed on the subject before trying to inject all the beginner/newbie known-bad-ideas, because it is really a well-developed art, with thousands of years of history, and a LOT of accumulated knowledge. Like any well-developed art, a person who is not up to speed on the present state of the art is unlikely to improve upon the art just shooting from the hip with some first impressions. Just sayin'.. Always good to be curious and want to advance a technology, but so far all I'm seeing is the most typical newbie/beginner nonsense. There is already enough nonsense in AWE. The only way it will ever succeed is if people who know something about wind energy get involved. It is really amusing yet disturbing to see this continue for 13 years now - all newbies all the time. What I was used to was wind energy forums where most of the participants either knew what they were talking about, or at least wanted to learn. In this forum, on the other hand (or any AWE forum) it is ME who is MUCH more likely to be shouted down (or just deleted) for even having ANY IDEA what I am talking about, which is alternately frowned upon, or simply verboten, in these circles. Just so you know, from an actual wind person. This message is powered by a 10 kW wind turbine on a 120-foot tower. Thank You for listening. :) ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2022-02-09 04:09:09 UTC | #130 [quote="dougselsam, post:129, topic:1610"] What I was used to was wind energy forums where most of the participants either knew what they were talking about, or at least wanted to learn. [/quote] Do you have a link? [s][/s] ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-09 07:23:57 UTC | #131 I can’t quite tell if your bragging or not? [quote="dougselsam, post:129, topic:1610"] This message is powered by a 10 kW wind turbine on a 120-foot tower. [/quote] But hey oh what do you know? Fair enough I’m little greenhorn when it comes to wind energy. however when it come to assembling things. I live and breath that stuff. I wouldn’t have called it nonsense though I’m just viewing this much like Lego. To me don’t sound like a bad idea. Owing to the fact that like you say [quote="dougselsam, post:129, topic:1610"] because it is really a well-developed art, with thousands of years of history, and a LOT of accumulated knowledge [/quote] I was trying to come from that place even if I wasn’t all to aware of the day to day. I’m only putting together what I’m aware of. It all a step along the way. Can sense be made of it sure. It never a mistake to explore ideas especially ones that you haven’t encountered or don’t know all that well. Sure things have plagued AWE. each and everyone here comes from many walks of life with various degrees of awareness and knowledge of the subject. I can fling a spanner along with the best of them. When my gear start to turn an I understand I usually can nudge things along. What you describe is a know thy enemy situation. 1. Drag 2. Friction 3. Back emf 4. Material fatigue 5. Unknown hazards 6. Issues with material supply 7. Environmental stresses on products. 8. Reach in wider population. 9. Personal level of understanding Approach is everything. I’m try to work with the core tenant and keep it simple enough. that in a apocalyptic situation you can tackle that junk pile and keep going. I’m fairly sure that, where I am we have 120 of the big buggers. Sat in an array of shore in the English Channel. You know it’s all a matter of perspective. So there a small chance some of the power it took tho write this came from there. Goal and focus. It all a learning curve. I’m just greatful I was able to achieve something however minor. AWE need to be like the American war machine in ww2. Yes the Sherman tanks were not able to take a panzer hit. but there was so many of them that it didn’t matter because it was easier to produce. At various point during that war the American out stripped German production many times over..the same was true for soviet Russian and their main battle tank. Btw I’ve come close to hand gliding on a few occasions as former air scout. I’d like to hand glide at some point as I’ve alway imagined what it would be like. We even see our local police paraglider the one with a prop strapped to it. It is a huge sport round here come summertime. Definitely would transfer neatly to awe applications. So thank you for the suggestions 👍 I must admit it been awhile since my last opportunity to take flight. Freeflying you could say it a bit of a dream. The last amount of electricity I made was after I helped my brother fix his car after the clutch died. That was a while ago. There always car batteries to consider. Due to the deep cycling. In the last 20 years thing have come on a long way. No one would have expect to get the amp hours out of a battery like we have today. Sure there are gaps in my knowledge but that is true for everybody. It all about find those bits you don’t know and learning from them. Glad for the pointer. If I had a few million to throw at it I wouldn’t be using duck tape. I would be using something far more clever. far more homogeneous in design. If I can’t bolt it together in an afternoon it simply not worth my time. Like I said before I’m taking what I have and running with it. If I get something 😎 if I don’t I had fun making it and exploring the concept. Sure it make some giggle themselves silly like a monty pythons sketch. Regardless if there a simple way and design. I’d like to find one. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-10 18:25:45 UTC | #132 [quote="Freeflying, post:131, topic:1610"] I can’t quite tell if your bragging or not? [/quote] Maybe a little, but it is not a turbine I built, just the best brand of small turbine, requiring more just to keep running than the electricity is worth, even if the entire installation is free, which mine was, considering it came with this ranch property, already installed. Well actually I had to buy a used one of the same model and replace the original which I can now rebuild due to installer error and faulty tech support, which burned out a generator. So now I have two - one to run and one to rebuild. The main reason I sometimes add that tagline of being powered by wind energy is, over the 13 years+ of these AWE forums, I have yet to see any person or team ever utilizing wind energy as a power source. Not once, ever. Zero experience or even familiarity with wind energy in these circles, where "anything goes" but nothing ever takes hold. This includes all the BIG BIG BIG names, from the largest corporations like Google, highly-publicized efforts said to emanate from major technical universities like MIT, Delfts, etc., and highly-funded **and** highly-publicized "teams" that seem to regularly emerge, tell the world how many houses they "will" power "next year", then disappear. Of the hundreds or thousands of homes promised to be powered by AWE, today there is not a single home powered by AWE. The point I'm making is that for most AWE wannabe's, generating electricity from the wind is just a wish, a talking point, a fantasy, not a daily reality. I'm trying to remind people that wind energy is a real thing, not just a fantasy talking point. When we had a yahoo group for "small wind", the discussions were around how well systems people had built or bought were running, what went wrong, how they fixed it, etc. Also a lot of theory was discussed. Of course you would get the occasional newbie post about a Savonius turbine, maybe with maglev bearings, but they were about fantasy, not working systems anyone used. They were posts by outsiders who thought they were introducing real wind people to new ideas, not realizing they were just the typical and well-known "bad" ideas. Wind energy has developed to such an extent that by now it provides a significant percentage of all electricity in the world. The machinery is so advanced you could compare it to the world's best supercars. Now I've explained this many times to all the AWE newbies, but I'll say it one more time for your benefit: Would you show up at the Indianapolis 500 (auto racing) with a wheelbarrow and expect to qualify? What if your wheelbarrow used "maglev bearings"? How hard would people laugh? You'd be lucky if someone didn't die from laughing so hard, unable to breathe, right? Well what do you think a little Savonius turbine on a plywood base is in wind energy? It is a wheelbarrow in a world of supercars, that's what. The maglev bearings, sexy as they seem, are 100% irrelevant - a wheelbarrow is a wheelbarrow, and if maglev bearings for any wind turbine were a good idea, someone would probably be using them by now. Literally, the only reason newbies love maglev is their turbines are so crappy they are lucky to even spin at all, so maglev "seems" like "a great idea". In reality wind turbines make so much power that the real problem is controlling it at the top end, not coaxing it to merely spin. The generator provides thousands of times the resistance to spinning as the bearings. But newbie turbines are lucky to even **have** a generator. If so they probably just sit there. What about your car, does it use magnetic bearings? Why not go on an automotive website and "introduce" a push-cart with magnetic bearings? Would anyone care? Would they delete your account? This is the second AWE discussion group, with a total of 13 years and counting of wannabe innovators posting random whacky notions that just pop into their heads. So far it has led nowhere. Today the "big news" is the supposed purchase and shipping of AWE systems. I guess we're up to about one per year. Still no news of them actually in use. Really, from a wind energy perspective, it is all so silly that its hard to believe. So keep on thinking, I applaud the creativity and urge to make a difference, just so you know where the whole thing is really at. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-10 21:38:05 UTC | #133 I think there so many potentials that its somewhere people get lost. Much like candy store. You walk into the candy store but your only allowed one option because you tight for cash. Yes your spoiled for choice but in away thats its major downside. I think many of the upstart get so far but fail because the can’t reach there target audience. I’m fairly sure that down to social or political interaction. Its like mass adhd where everyone is into different things and are not aware of there options. so finds it difficult to connect. Im aware of people who have cobbled something together. Then had my drop wide open at some of the Dutch efforts with there wind farms. Plywood doesn’t make for the lightest of turbine. I definitely wouldn’t think anyone would like to change solid bearings every 3 months. depending the bearing?that can get expensive. should they ware out. Never mind the fact that I’ve seen on a few testing videos of them shattering completely. Once they become overclocked. That like being below decks with splinters flying everywhere. I know it takes a lot more to make a turbine. Even more to get it to market. Once safety check are signed off. Definitely something management would need to check over. Would I turn up to the indie 500 with a wheel barrow? That would depend on solely on the criteria. Even if I could modify it? Definitely sound like an episode of extreme Viking to me. Would a double plenum design count? I know the indie 500 can get real messy. So a role cage is a must. I’ve seen plenty of memes with Aladdin at the indie 500 racing a magic carpet. I don’t see why a converted wheel barrow would be any different. Plenty of mech tippers to choose from. Would be much like wacky racers. I don’t believe there ever be a hovercraft entry to the indie 500 let alone one with eco credentials. Colin furze might even have a go. He’s even got a wind powered tumble dryer so who knows? As for controls for over clocking. I’m aware that there are examples where they installed regenerative braking much like a Rev limiter. to stop the whole system gone into an induction induced nightmare. Where it all goes bang.Definitely seen a few self destruct vid for that. Definitely would pass on that. I certainly would not want the paperwork to land on my desk. Then have to decide how many pages are they going to need. That where I would delegate. To one with more experience. For me, paperwork, more over completing it. is a nightmare in itself. I’m luck if I can scan 50 pages without a headache. Definitely a small bite kind of guy there. I know what I can build some time with tooth picks. I know how far I can go with what I know. Then call in some who can check it over. Reality checks alway helps sign of those balances. It always comes Down to innovator vs inventor. I find myself trying to innovate with what is known to me from what I learn. An inventor knows things others don’t. I much prefer the tool box of simple things. than totally crazy where the bloody hell did that come from? Most is already known it just about mixing and matching. Then baking that cake. Especially with limited resources. I’m tempted to mention solvated electrons or isothermal coolant. but I will leave that for another day. I wouldn’t wand you all dying of laughter as I monty python my way to ooohh shiny. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-10 23:57:59 UTC | #134 [quote="Freeflying, post:133, topic:1610"] people get lost [/quote] Sorry, but every further word you type just digs you deeper into the hole you are digging yourself into. Knowing nothing about a given field is not a good preparation for improving it. I have yet to see anything meaningful. Bearings in wind turbines typically last 20 years or more. Overspeed (overclocking as you are calling it) is the main challenge in wind energy. Preventing it is not easy, but of course newbies always have some quick "all ya gotta do is" type answer. I would recommend you give it up now because I do not see you going anywhere in wind energy. And I have to seriously consider why I'm still wasting my time on these "open" forums since after 13 years all we have is new perpetual newbies acting just like the defunct old perpetual newbies. I keep telling myself to just stop posting or answering posts here. I try to give people the real story, but so many people are allergic to facts and think they know everything while not even having the slightest clue... ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-11 06:53:51 UTC | #135 Yep I do that looking for answers. 13 years on forums make you a veteran.its worth picking your brains alittle. The point we are both make with the development of AWE is both of us are yet to encounter a lead with very real world applications. Hence when I mentioned candy store. As all engineering get bogged down in the details. There are people out there trying things out. Giving a go. Those ones have limited resources or even access to the kind of big things most do dream and fantasise about. There probably a million others try various things for example …… https://youtu.be/yQl1uomzQiI I’d say there definitely efforts being made on every level. I get you have a despise for this kind of thing. Pet hates and bug bears which is fine. It doesn’t make it invalid in the slightest. Without those will to make inquires Awe will stagnate. So you Can’t find riches without digging a few holes somewhere. Is a say I’m reminded of. I’m like this because of fact based inquiry. If I don’t know something all too well. the only way I have to learn is to seek out those who know and speak with them. I’d admit it been a pretty long road. Up to here. I’m interested in how they do it and why? There will alway be a Goldilocks zone when it come to development. It part of that paradigm. Im loving the feed back. I’m definitely hyper focused on how can you build the bloody damn thing. To Have that meaningful impact. I’m under no delusion how difficult this could be. Many have sacrificed themselves on that altar and achieve nothing or very little at all. Just raising awareness is a victory for some. If that lead on into the next move ant the next? That has got to be a good thing for everybody. It might just be a phase for me. I go through them. Who am I to Deny or disappoint you there? I be there first person to admit my limitations. I have reasons for doing that. I’m not afraid to let someone far more knowledgable take the lead. I commend you there. I will alway try to come from my knowledge base whenever i try to make or design anything. I don’t consider anything I do to be absolutely brand spanking new. Nope. In fact it’s quiet the opposite.. I like to use a core of what is tried and tested. I’d bee happy just assembling them. We all seen roller coasters stopped with the power of lenz law. With magnetic braking. I doubt it would be any different out there in the field. 100 feet up on a mast. Ive listened an know, you know where things will overspeed and clock out.. i hazard a guess you know where the material limits are? I get that many of the current turbine system are dialled in for that very reason. Otherwise turbine say no. Then there an awful mess to clean up. Most engineering’s I’ve encountered fear those days. Ive heard the major groan when they hear of it. It has alway been a running thing in the office of how many sheets of paper will it be this time? Health and safety accident reporting. I don’t think I’ve ever met engineer who doesn’t loathe the paperwork. Because i know many would like to kick back and fling spanners all day long. You answer because you believe that it the right thing to do. that I applauded you for having the patience of a saint. Just for that. I’m going to leave it here as I fear I might just give you an aneurism. So thank you. I hope you have a nice day. ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-11 08:47:13 UTC | #136 Below are a short video helping to understand the basic operating elements of a Maglev Wind Turbine, then a website for building one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h18AJM0TNss https://www.electricalindia.in/wind-power-generation-using-maglev-technology-an-experimental-study-on-miniature-fabricated-model/ Some features could perhaps be useful for some AWES architectures where classic ball bearings are not easily implementable. Hi @dougselsam, what you call "the real world of wind energy" does not intend to do AWES. Current wind turbines do not fly. Currently the reeling yo-yo mode seems to have some advance ([average 92 kW (figure 15)](https://forum.awesystems.info/t/autonomous-airborne-wind-energy-systems-accomplishments-and-challenges/1803) with 12 m/s wind speed). And as you often mention this mode of production would not be used for ground-based wind turbines. But AWES aim to be flying wind energy systems. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-11 11:40:47 UTC | #137 There some really good links you have there. so thank you! I will read up to understand more. If you get the chance I have a look at ploy magnets. As far as I understand they can be printed directly into a material. https://youtu.be/MOWZc8UUs5E You also have https://youtu.be/YuZ0W4TugG4 And https://youtu.be/76yRObMIwa0 Just but a few examples. To refer to. Might have some use in AWES as well. As they are following in the same vain with the magnetics. It always got to know what is out there. So everyone able draw on the experience. to somewhat come up with a core of components that can be used. It how the managed to take the Bren gun from ww2 from a 100 odd parts to 49 parts if I recall correctly. Definitely magnetic bearings hold a great potential in awe applications. While I think about it. you have magnetic tape option. Which could also be use especially with the yo yo mode style system. Especially if they looped around system of pulleys. Much like how the old Walkman cassette tapes used to work. That would only need a liner motor set up. Which can have coils top an bottom or in any orientation imaginable. I’ve fond memories of rewinding old tapes when they got chewed up. The same mechanism could be adapted for AWES. With a kite used to draw the tap though the coils much like I’ve seen in many of the postings on here. Where you have a ground station two Ankers points with pulleys. Just want to say AWES architect has potential due to it versatility and room for modification and up grades. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-11 15:57:26 UTC | #138 OK I was about to say all these ideas are on the well-worn, official "Professor Crackpot" list, til I saw the magnetic gears which is something new on these forums and something I have been looking into for a while now. Bear in mind it is an idea with wide applications, so what are the problems with it? Don't know, but there probably are some. Other than that, most of this stuff is "on the list". It's OK, just so you know. OK gotta go hit the slopes - later! :) ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-11 19:36:56 UTC | #139 An interesting question to open some perspective about repellant force: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_will_be_the_magnetic_repellant_force What will be the magnetic repellant force ? > Question > > * Asked November 2, 2021 > > Hello everyone, > > I have a neodymium N42 grade 10mm thick 50mm diameter magnet with surface field of 2450 Gauss equal to 0.245 Tesla. Base on calculations, repellant force between two of them is about 72.3 lb at zero distance. > > Now If instead of one magnet I put a same size coil with iron core over one magnet, how much force I can get with a pulse of 10 amperes of current pushing my neodymium magnet in stroke distance of 50 mm? Probably my coil should have over 1000 turns but the specification of coil is unknown to me. > > What I need is the workable coil specs and the maximum repellant force I can get? > > Thanks a lot ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-12 01:08:34 UTC | #140 [quote="PierreB, post:139, topic:1610"] how much force I can get with a pulse of 10 amperes of current pushing my neodymium magnet in stroke distance of 50 mm? [/quote] Hi Pierre: This question should have a fairly straightforward answer. If the magnets are touching, the repulsive force should approximately equal the attractive force, depending on which way to magnet is turned or the current flows. The force will be very high at zero distance (if the magnets are touching or very close) and the force will be MUCH lower if they are 50 mm (about two inches) apart. You might find an online magnetic field calculator that would be able to get you some answers, and I think it would be pretty straightforward to calculate forces for two identical magnets, based on surface area, etc. I know I have a lot of H40 Neo magnets around here and some of the thicker ones, maybe 18 mm thick or so, and maybe like 1" x 2" are extremely difficult to pull apart once stuck together. I like to hand them to really strong guys to see if they can pull them apart (usually they cannot), then when they hand them back I pull them apart fairly easily, but only because I slowly learned the tricks of how to handle them after a lot of playing with them. Gotta twist them and slide them around to get them in a vulnerable position and use a little body English to tease them apart. Hard to explain, easier to just do, once you get the hang of it. Great day skiing by the way, perfect snow, nice and warm, no wind, no lift lines, and 77 degrees and sunny when I got home. Almost like summer, except not quite hot. I almost got in the lift with a couple of girls wearing bikinis. Another guy I ski with is 78 years old, skis in the mornings, drives back down to Santa Monica and goes surfing, then goes to work at 4:00 PM as a chiropractor. Nothing like Southern California. I can see the ski trails from my house, so it is always hard to resist going up! :) ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-12 06:34:24 UTC | #141 [quote="dougselsam, post:140, topic:1610"] magnetic field calculator [/quote] Hi Doug, Below is a calculator of both pull force and repelling. Pull force is a bit higher. https://www.kjmagnetics.com/calculator.asp The question was not exactly about two identical magnets, but about one magnet and *a same size coil with iron core over one magnet* *with a pulse of 10 amperes of current pushing my neodymium magnet in stroke distance of 50 mm*. You make a beautiful description of a day in California, an already very attractive country. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-12 09:00:28 UTC | #142 Usually the repellent force are equal to resistant forces. He’s looking for resistance and distance. To calculate the forces you first must know the variables Which he doesn’t state clearly nor does he mention wire thickness.. so this is completely Upto builders digression. Using lenz law along side faradays laws. Meaning for the 50*10 to wants to use. To find some known values. ![image|365x500, 100%](upload://nX5RSHogj42ykIoz5FqWtZBwixh.jpeg) 14 awg wire will handle the load. Also depending on the core will influence the magnetic flux. As stated in this Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_core It also why I remember my science teacher talking about the big electromagnets on scrap yards. Once Side read the other Side dead. When dealing with electromagnets. http://www.ohiomagnetics.com/our-products/magnet-scrap-handling Now its just matter of scaling back. POW-R-LITE™ Magnets Lowest is about 150lb which means about half of that is what the chaps looking for..72.3lb assuming he wishes to equal the neodymium equivalent. For the same size. Cores are normally 2/3rds of the magnetic setup. Meaning 50mm he would need the core to be 33.33mm. *10mm then it working out the turns from that. To make up the rest of the magnet. 5 turns per layer at 2mm. You have eight layers of coils which make up the magnet. It comes out a little under size but so it a toss up on what to do on sizing the magnet. 14 gauge is 2mm if you subtract 33.33mm from 50mm which give you the remainders of the space to play with. Once that punched in, you end up with 42- 45 turns in 14 gauge wire. But you only get 40 turns due to dimension. Which might just be the life the universe and everything. He might get 1000 turns if ultra thin nano wires. But in the end that is just a design choice. He could also use copper tape to wrap the cores in and it would work just as well. If he is looking for the equal to neodymium? Might even be a chance? he will have better values using the electromagnet than neodymium. Assembly brain. Neil deGrasse Tyson once proposed a similar question but with shadows from a tower to figure out it’s height. So there my hat into the ring. With my tool box. It classic professor question. Love it. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-19 16:22:59 UTC | #143 Also for reference https://youtu.be/mgwf4db5V9A https://youtu.be/LzzFXH3__5M ------------------------- makingtuk | 2022-02-13 10:47:34 UTC | #144 How do i get past the bot and communicate with humans. Every time i ask this question, the bot responds advising me to restate the question...I don't have a BOT and BOT TO BOT COMMUNICATION IS A GRAND WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY...I HAVE MANY QUESTIONS AND NEED ASSISTANCE. I believe you have info i need, but you have no way to communicate! ------------------------- makingtuk | 2022-02-13 10:47:34 UTC | #145 So i need Admin approval to ask a question of Admin? ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2022-02-13 10:49:16 UTC | #146 Hi @makingtuk, to combat SPAM, new users first have to show some activity on the forum before they can reply to posts. You can post and comment now. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-14 13:55:59 UTC | #147 The only few issues I know about with mag gears depending the variety. is slipping, magnetic inversion (aka pole changes), magnetic reconnection. Content creators out YouTube explain this one better than I could. Especially when talking gear ratios. When working the low friction is a bonus. Which maximise the efficiency you can get out. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-18 14:19:38 UTC | #148 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-tiny-english-island-is-looking-for-a-new-monarch-to-run-its-pub-180979594/ It occurred to me Roddy might like a new island to inhabit. OK the article does not specifically mention AWE, but isn't it obvious? ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-18 15:14:17 UTC | #149 Nice idea, however Piel Island - Future Management Arrangement ## Main contract details Opportunity Id DN592380 Title Piel Island - Future Management Arrangement Categories 151900 - Management 190000 - Facilities & Management Services Description Barrow Borough Council is looking to contract with a tenant to manage namely Piel Island and the Ship Inn pub. The ITT document within aims to provide an overview of the area, the Island, the Council along with the service level expectations of the Council. *Unfortunately due to Covid Restrictions we are unable to provide a tour of the Ship Inn, however we will have a virtual tour ready to be uploaded once completed. (Expected date 20/01/2022)* Region(s) of supply East Cumbria Estimated value N/A Keywords Pub Management, Facilities Management, Facility Management, Pub , Public House ## Key dates **Estimated contract dates** Start date 01/04/2022 End date 09/02/2032 from https://www.barrowbc.gov.uk/visitors/attractions/piel-island/ The offer was From 18/01/2022 08:00 to 04/02/2022 17:00. Would have been nice to invite people to. I don’t think I know anyone that wouldn’t jump at the chance. It is to do with the pub. ancient rituals. I know a lot of re-enactment bods and wild campers that would bite your hands off for it. It very mans dream to run a pub and a castle. As I said nice idea, I fear that opportunity gone. I just had to check if it was still available. Because who would want to be king in thier own right. Have beer poured over them. just to run a whole island. Sound like a messy night in a bar. There will be other islands for sure. I hear there are micro nations on abandoned oil rigs. Should one come up for grabs AWEs could bolt one down and call it it own. Might look alittle like kamino from Star Wars. If you get one. Like Giant golf tee placed in sea bed. ------------------------- Rodread | 2022-02-19 15:29:47 UTC | #150 No need for me to move to England Please We have our very own sovereignty here in Shetland. E.g Last summer, a pal and I paddled to Forvik Island to mount a hostile takeover of the territory. But when we got there, we found the king Stuart Hill (a man affectionately known to the press as captain calamity) to be a lovely fellow. Reading his Wikipedia entry will brighten up any day. Stuarts books and adventures through the courts regarding Shetland sovereignty are wow He was very keen on having a kite turbine on the island. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-19 17:21:31 UTC | #151 Just read the article, Tried to out do the Viking raids by the looks of things. I understand it a bit if traditional up there. If all else fail the open blue waits. I say the king of island earn his title. Needing to be rescued. Wind energy might be just be a safer venture without need of a boat. I’d say you got a legend up that way. Better to keep hold of that. ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #152 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2UCK3pCFjk Explanations but waiting for a prototype... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAkn86rtJbc Experimentation at 6:30. https://www.jameco.com/jameco/workshop/howitworks/dysonairmultiplier.html ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #153 Did not see the video, but it does seem individual cars with their own propulsion would be a logical next step for railroads. After all the train concept is mostly about one crew and propulsiive car being able to pull many cars. If the cars are automated, why do they have to be stuck together? Then again if you live near train tracks you will have cars going by all day long. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #154 https://www.jetoptera.com/ Definitely coming along. Just another example. ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #155 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPZI6XoHi10 ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #156 https://youtu.be/jbXJa8osys0 Integza attempt using combustion and 3D printed parts. Sintering process could have very similar outcomes. Additive manufacturing is a huge leap forward for complex geometry involved. It wouldn’t take much to adapt. The bonus is a veritable levels of skill set could be used to achieve it. I’ve looked at sheet metal for a non combusting version. Not sure about carbon fibre though might be worth a go. It is just one way of increasing airflow from low volume airflow to high volume. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #157 [quote="Freeflying, post:154, topic:1610"] Definitely coming along. Just another example. [/quote] Yeah, another "press-release breakthrough", which has yet to show true success. This phenomenon is certainly interesting, but experience shows that merely being "interesting" does not translate into sure success in wind energy. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #158 Success, ah that old chestnut. Success levels, 1. Can you build it? 2. Did you get it to work? 3. What kind of result did you get? 4. What kind of reach do you have? 5. can you get it to market? 6. Do you have any takers? Jetoptera are on number 4. It may not reach full potential. They successful built a working prototype. Many others are trying. I agree its fierce competition out there. It a question how far they will get? Sure there are practical elements. Choked airflow will definitely hinder performance. Along with pressure differentials. It normally causes stalling in jet engines and energy loss. Options Are there to explore the technology. Many far more ahead than me developing the technology. What it does promotes is ideas. Which they were successful at doing. Someone along that chain will come up with something that will have cause and effect. I’m no fool to believe that reach is infinite. Limited reach has be a curse for so many for so long. Raising awareness leads to some one succeeding. That is the feed back loop. That moves us all along. Inspiration is the beginning. Success is the results. If you learn that was no good great! you might fail 1000 times, but you might only need to succeed once. That is the important bit. Will it translate we are yet to see. I hope it does. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #159 Yeah well the problem wannabe technology breakthrough people often have is unchanging: Do you really have a breakthrough. These days it is easy to find takers for bad technology. Take the ducted wind turbines (DAWT), which this reminds me of, as an example. Ogin was the name. The promoters take a regular, low-solidity (~2% rotor solidity) wind turbine, and seek to "improve" it by adding a 100% solidity duct around it. Obviously the duct itself, being larger diameter, and 50x the solidity of the rotor, will want to use far more material than the rotor itself. Then the extra wind speed will cause the rotor to get too loud, so they will have to increase the solidity of the previously 2% solidity rotor. Raising the solidity lowers efficiency. Obviously this assembly will use more material than simply increasing rotor diameter. About the best you can say for it is that it increases RPM, slightly reducing the need for gearing(?), but now you have to support and aim this large, solid diffuser ring. The idea had been long-debunked, but Kleiner Perkins still funded it. I had to fortunate opportunity to hang out with the Kleiner Perkins founders for a few days and filled them in on the previous failed diffuser augmented turbine fiasco where New Zealand had wasted $20 million on the idea. Unfortunately all I had accomplished was to let them know where to sell this project, which turned out to be New Zealand. No good deed goes unpunished. Meanwhile, bad ideas and a whole lotta talk talk talk about them is not progress. It is just a bunch of wasted energy. All the new big-talkers think they are different, but no, it is just more of the same, except nowadays with smartphones and the internet, bad ideas go viral as easily as the few good ideas that get floated around. :) ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #160 I remember back in 2012 where there was a lot of hype all over Facebook. Some seamed very promising, then completely dematerialised by 2016. I can remember a few designs that stick in my mind. The barrage ballon approach was very promising. as well as one, what can only be described as something out of the teletubbies. Then you have a few duct designs based around a chinmeny for all intensive purposes. As seen below. ![image|183x275](upload://sscGxtZxFKMPr6rXQdj6dJMZmmZ.jpeg) I remember reading somewhere Israel wanted to build something based around a cool tower design ![image|690x459](upload://8lXnzHljNkF9fPXQTKFfnylIu0o.jpeg) I’m still waiting to see one for real. Also there was a wind tower design that was designed to used the Bernoulli’s principle. To drive massive turbines, stacked up, One on top the other. I forget who they called. I know they were a Scandinavian company. Reminded me of a Francis turbine. They way the designed it. ![image|640x479](upload://3GhkfU1noY2vVAsqMGgauWD3ZoD.jpeg) Definitely a few out there I hope would come about. Some not so much. So many disciplines I find it hard know where to start. I know there are options. Just don’t want to be unwittingly treading in toes. Aware there have been many a dumpster fire when it comes to design and development. I recall one chap here in Britain fitting a turbine to someone’s house claiming it would give ten time what it delivered. He got fined hard under trade description. fined 1m or so. Then barred from the profession. Got to love bbc watchdog for pointing such things out. Definitely littered with hopeful failures. There the ones I know about. So If you could get airflow at the require pressure and density? Then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air to match the density and flow of water at 997 kg/m³ a Francis turbine would be a good bet for a DAWT. 98% efficient as I recall. That much I do know. As for spin control. induction plates that move in and out or vary In thickness. might do the trick. without need to gear down to where the generator could handle the load. Passive Magnetic braking as so to speak. That only engages with at certain rpms. Due to centrifugal force. To slow the turbine where it needed. With back up immobilisers. Being 6 inch steel pins. That lock directly into the rotor. For excessive storm conditions. Might look a little like a grinder key. It will need to resist shear strength of steel that thick. To stop it acting like a guillotine. Then having it go into self destruct mode. I’m sure there More point to raise With design. even things that I’ve yet to consider. Being the spanner monkey I am. Success and failure definitely walk that invisible tightrope. You don’t know who will fall off or get cheese wired in the process. Definitely a minefield out there for the inexperienced trying to determine good ideas from the bad ones. Or even if the have any use at all? No doubt I’ve done a few funky cartwheels over a few of them. Live and learn physics until a brakethrough happens. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #161 [quote="Freeflying, post:160, topic:1610"] So many disciplines I find it hard know where to start. [/quote] Well just keep posting links to anything you think is interesting and maybe like the proverbial "monkey at the typewriter", after a few trillion years, you might randomly come across a solution. But by then will anyone recognize it? It is nice that you found a site to spill your brains, like that drunken "artist" who threw paint at canvas and sold paintings to the unwary. But just so you know, you;re just the latest in probably 20 years that I can remember of people posting whatever random thoughts enter their brain as potential wind energy solutions. Now don't get me wrong, I'm always open to see such ideas. I love innovation, and it can come from unexpected places, but then again in wind energy it is such an old story to have people without a clue of wind energy nonetheless pretending every half-baked idea that courses through their feeble brain "must be" a breakthrough. So far it pretty much never has been. Wind people know this and are used to it. The people doing it think they are original. No they are not. They are just more of the same. Well-understood to have no real understanding of what they are even talking about, they just keep spewing the same ignorant nonsense over and over, usually thinking they are the first. And when they ARE the first to float a new idea in wind energy, it is usually wrong anyway, but they just don't know any better. The last guys running an AWE forum (like "the inmates running the asylum") could not, in 12 years, come up with anything that could even make measurable power, no matter what. Before they "quietly went away", they were down to claiming the wind energy industry was too dependent on power meters, and that leaves wiggling on a tree, or the mere shade provided by a kite from the sun, were working examples of airborne wind energy. 3-D printing is an example of the tempting techno-candy that attracts AWE enthusiasts. All it's gotta be is something that seems halfway new and unexpected, with maybe a scientific or techno flavor, and well-intentioned wannabes will propose it as a wind energy breakthrough. In the end, doing daily brain-dumps on a forum like this will probably get you nowhere in wind energy. It's like you just walked into a darkened hall with a piece of paper that someone said would get you in the door to see your favorite band, and you think it is just you, until you walk in and see 70,000 other people in the stands who all thought they were there for a private audience. Nope, turns out it was a very common thing to think this and you are in the company of thousands of other people who thought the same thing. Just so you know. This is really just highly redundant. Probably a better path would be to develop your wind energy solution, take some data, **then** announce your "breakthrough". No, every passing thought is not another breakthrough. It's just an active mind bored and in need of focus. OK now I'll take my own advice and get on with my hopefully somewhat productive day! :) ------------------------- tallakt | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #162 Just adding a random picture to explain why a lot of these ideas dont make much sense to me: ![image|567x151](upload://oNW9fHktDxKkuN7AMGYEferTf6y.jpeg) Source: http://www.urbanphysics.net/Dispersion%20Montreal%206.jpg The wind at the top of the building is 10 m/s while the wind speed at the wall of the building is only 2-3 m/s. It just doesnt make sense to adda tubine to the base of the building to pass air through. The wind will find its way around obstacles. If you could make the obstable super cheap you may have a winner if you put your windmill on top of the obstacle. This is not new. It is very common to put a windmill on top of a mountain. I think it makes sense to start by thinking a windmill is something that is placed in the wind, as far as possible from other items. Then the windmill must be able to extract energy from the flow using a very low cost machine, that sweeps a huge area. The last thing is very important. Because you will eventually be competing in price with a traditional windmill [HAWT]. And those are actually very good machines as of today. So anything looking remotely like anything you just described is just noe going to cut it. My advice would be either to just focus on incremental improvements to HAWT or look at airborne wind systems. Right now these are the only two options I see as possible options, barring some fun technology that could extract energy from air at a distance, like a LIDAR but energy harvesting. Sure, its fun looking for that device, but not very likely to get there without a lot of ground work done first. For HAWT and AWE much of the ground work has been done, but then you need to actually go down that rabbit hole and figure out what exactly that is. I agree that posting random images and thoughts here is not going to be very productive. @dougselsam is spot on in his reply. Please dont take this in the wrong way. This is «tough love», I’d love to se you make progress in whatever you decide to do, I just dont think you are on to anything right now. ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #163 [quote="tallakt, post:162, topic:1610"] For HAWT and AWE much of the ground work has been done [/quote] HAWT is operational at all scales, and significant electricity production have long existed in the commercial phase. AWE is eternally in the prototype phase and still produces little or nothing in the commercial phase. It is therefore not possible to compare them. In a sense, @Freeflying is not wrong to invoke technologies that are very unlikely to succeed, in an AWE environment that is also very unlikely to succeed. ------------------------- tallakt | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #164 I dont think its exactly comparable. For AWE a lot of effort has been made to prove that it is not impossible. Then you have the gap between «not impossible» and «a good idea». AWE is somewhere between those extremes. Many of these other things, one could simply say cost effectiveness is simply impossible ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #165 Finally making sense. That what I was looking for vortex shedding. Car spoilers do exactly that. For extra traction. It’s a simple as hiding behind a buttressed wall. Well aware there nothing new in this regards. Perhaps it won’t get as far as some of the other mentalist. as I don’t have the funds or resources let alone the reach. It how 7m/s gust round a building can be amplified. To 30-40m/s. I’m merely toying and experiment with concepts idea and principles because I can. Tai chi take what you have and make the most of it. Its why they claim they hardly touch you but throw you 10m backwards. No different for wind energy. Big brain bods like yourself with mountain more experience know things I don’t it. why I come here. I can learn from that. so thank you there! @PierreB @dougselsam sure there is economy of scale. From what I noticed and PierreB point out AWEs gets stuck in an infinite design loop for one reason or another. At some point you going to need to go into full scale production. If you don’t know what your looking for or even where to find it. You will be choked off. And won’t even get airborne. I was all way told it what is the goal? And build a picture from that. Now success broardens it’s metric. It the greatest sin of all design engineering’s to go “let reinvent the wheel”. That sure to deprive you of time money and effort. Because people forgot to keep it simple. It also help build a picture of good design practices. In most cases vortex shedding is a pain. But it not without it benefits if properly utilised. I recall James dyson holding a competition for designers to make use of vortex shedding. A design they came up with wall a polygonal tetrahedron. I know it possible it something. I’m yet to try for myself. If I was to get brutally simple. It would be steel, plate biofoil coils. With magnetic induction. For easy of assembly.. if I really wanted to be cheep throw in a few 7*2 and old washing machine drum. Then go “let have some fun” Appreciate the pointer and the demo of the pressure wave. Even a board placed at 57degress from horizontal would have the same effect. The point I’m making is when it come to easy of manufacturing. you will have people design something then, expect an assembly like to build it. The fewer step that has the quicker you will get that to market. The bigger your reach will be. By what I can make out many of you know the mechanics involved here.. and from that, I get yes it could work. but good luck figuring it out. It been an argument throughout engineering. do you go with one single big unit. Or multiple smaller units. Looking at the drawbacks with each solution helps. I’m glad there are people that can fill me in. thats always a two way thing. I might suprise you one day with a working prototype. If a can pursade my folk to part with an old dryer drum. ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #166 As Doug aptly explains, "innovations" like DAWT have all failed for HAWT. You have to wonder why it would be better with AWES... ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #167 Well if you take dawt to mean pet or cuddle? Unlikely. I was going say something grandiose about the jet stream That would be the wrong answer. Most of the companies go big go bust. I have been looking into this a little more this morning, https://www.omnicalculator.com/ecology/wind-turbine Toyed with a few numbers for a small scale demonstration. got some numbers for example 123 watts I’m unsure if that daily, weekly or monthly. for a turbine thats only .5m across in 6.5m/s windspead. Which is average for the south coast in the English Channel. That would be 744rpm and a torque factor of 0.4373Nm. I looked at the average home electric use which was 242Kwh a month according to ovo energy. https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/how-much-electricity-does-a-home-use I don’t think I’m going braking the bank anytime soon. Experimenting as I said. target production materials cost shouldn’t exceed £500, be lucky if it break £100 for a test run. provided I recycle parts I can get for free.. I reckon it could be assembled in an afternoon and have answers by teatime. I’m not purely focused on DAWT devices. As It not the only option out there. What I hope to achieve is a meccano set of parts. that your everyday layman can bolt together in an afternoon. Plug and play with. I don’t mind outsourcing. To Those with expertise. If I can pull it off. It would be a major coup. For the energy sector as a whole as it would reduce carbon dependence massively. Yes many have failed to raise the interest and capital and keep their heads. I know we all would like to see a jet turbine style wind turbine in operation. I’m not kidding myself to think I’m the one to do that. I Can’t just go by a junk pratt and whitney for a scrap mod. It is out of my league. With a million dollar price tag in some cases. It might up just save failing aerospace production centres to switch over to wind energy. Even go through the production and modification process. There an 10 hectares site near me that I know of. Magellan aerospace former site at Bournemouth is one such site. If ever the uk wanted a new production centre specifically for wind energy. There is an opening if AWEs ever wanted one. Potential £100 million there if someone gets it right? Judging past efforts http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=637. cost, reach and understanding the operating environment. played a major role in their downfall. When when they got too big for their boots. It might work small scale? With batch production. but I don’t even see it being profitable large scale. As cost would far out strip demand. What the ducted guys proved is an idea, a test bed. For development. It is only a guesstimate but you may only get 0.0001% of total economic market share. Shiny products doing most the damage. Potential investors being too broke to invest. Obviously didn’t reach the intended audience or potential investment for future research and development. They also over stated their case. Before bringing it to market. Which must of had some effect. It really need to be affordable for an average joe to fit one to his house. Coming up 8 billion People with energy needs. Not everyone will share The same goals and directions on energy. Ducts do give AWES sustainability if renewable are used over long periods of time. 20 years or more. Light weight and portable. Especially if it skin on frame construction. Casting would be easier to make but would have a penalty weight wise. Long game is need here. No more than 50kg maximum as an ordinary would be able to lift it. Optimally 10-15kg is what you would aim for. I get the, know the competition part. Why you find a niches when you don’t won’t rock the boat. Or you go really big and have a megastructure made form concrete. With aperture of 1mile wide and several 100m tall. With multiple power units . Located in the structure. Theses work on volume. Much like a industrial grouting gun. Big fish little fish theroy. As a larger mass can influence a smaller one. Enough rambling i need some lunch. ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #168 @Freeflying, some topics like https://forum.awesystems.info/t/a-crackpot-design/248 or https://forum.awesystems.info/t/a-professor-crackpot-3-d-printing-wind-project/1381 could be more suitable. You can have fun with counter-rotating propellers or bladeless or both, DAWT and similar, Maglev wind turbines, Savonius-like and everything you want. Also consider that certainly AWE is struggling, but the teams are doing serious scientific and technical work, even if the results are pending. Consider also the basics of [wind turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine), and in particular [Betz's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law). True innovations are far from fancy "technologies" to wow newbies. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #169 [quote="Freeflying, post:167, topic:1610"] I know we all would like to see a jet turbine style wind turbine in operation. [/quote] Actually in wind energy, a jet turbine style would not work out. Too many inline rotors - all you need is one rotor in line with the wind to capture the Betz coefficient from a given area. This is typical know-nothing-newbie talk: take a simple concept that works, and think all it needs is to be made really complicated, adding mostly unnecessary steps - yeah, sure. [quote="Freeflying, post:167, topic:1610"] It really need to be affordable for an average joe to fit one to his house [/quote] Everyone who has ever tried mounting a wind turbine on a building has found it unworkable and removed it. This includes big companies and small, and buildings from small cottages to airports. As with most facts of wind energy, none of this is apparent to people from outside the field. There would seem to be no logical reason a wind turbine on a building should not work great, but they never do, so far, despite a lot of attempts. I had one mounted on the parapet walls of a commercial building til the owner made us take it down, but meanwhile, even this small turbine on a cinder-block-and-steel building made a lot of noise inside, despite rubber pads integrated into the mounting system. a couple of decades ago, when "the news" said the new world trade center building would have wind turbine built in, Paul Gipe and I immediately countered, exclaiming emphatically "NO IT WILL NOT!" How did we know? A little experience can go a long way. We recognized it as the typical know-nothing-newbie idiot talk it really was, whereas the average ordinary civilian bystander thought it sounded like a great idea. All those "really smart people" with their multi-million-dollar promises, and we little people with actual experience can outguess them 1000:1 every time. It gets pretty funny after a while. Regarding AWE, I declared from day one 14 years ago that nobody in the field knew what they were doing and success was unlikely in the near term on that basis. I got to the point I would just say "idiots, idiots, idiots" and then be censored with the reason "You can't just say "idiots idiots idiots"". Well the problem is, what if it;s true? I just can't say what my years of experience in wind energy tells me? Nope can't say the truth on the internet, as long as "the really smart people" take control of the conversation and delete anything THEY can't comprehend, true or not. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #170 By all means Correct me. if my fair weather guess work goes interstellar. I must be realistic with known principles I know and thats Ok. I’m not expecting to smash the sound or light barrier any time soon. Elon musk stands a better chance than I do of that. The best I might achieve is a floating planter for some strawberries at this rate. I will Just fling a few spanner’s and have fun doing it. I’m ok doing that. Its not all mr crackpot today. no! sure I find it mysterious and interesting. Some of the things I brought up have fairly solid roots in engineering some going as far back as the ancient Greeks. Knowing you guys understand that means. Someone stands a better chance of success. What you call “newbie talk” is just me enquiring. Why I mentioned the jet engine is purely down to the compressor.. and the fact the armish use wind compressor all the time to run equipment. As far as I was aware compressed air/ low pressure system didn’t follow the betz coefficient. More like Venturi. Much like steam turbine do. With 20–30MPa being 90% efficient in some cases. A Francis turbine being 98% efficient. Then you have things like tornados which have the lowest record isobar measurements of 5.72 inches. Which can toss a truck 5miles easy. The measurements are already done.on how much air flow that can create. Trying to converse in factoids. It why I mentioned water in previous posts. And trying to equal that in air pressure and density. using the wind to somehow achieve that. That is flow rates in M/s. Right? Or am I wrong? Which is Related directly to the air mass flowing over a turbine. No big trade secrets there. As for noise, sound mirrors, there’s always sound mirrors. Stonehenge is an example of acoustic damping where soundwaves rarely can be heard outside the outer ring of stones the same would apply here. It is totally possible these days to have noise cancellation. Especially because whole surfaces can be made into speaker thing. I’m probably being a massive techno geek. But Surely that’s part of the wave function that can be utilised? to cut down on vibrations which cause most the noise in the first place.I know it can be done by inverting the noise in a feedback loop much like how the the posh headphones do it and earbuds do it. Meaning you could be stood right by it and you wouldn’t know. I’m not trying to discredit 14 years of hard graft. no. quite the contrary. I wish you well. I hope you bloody achieve something. With the multi Mw turbine. I just know what I’m happy considering due to my apocalyptic resources. Being as scant as they are. Definitely give me lots to think about and chew on. I’ve had this many time over the course of my life, he never make it then they freak out when I do. It ain’t all bs. Nope it just the tool box that we have. With the materials available. It is impressive the work everyone does here. Keep it up. 👍 ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #171 https://youtu.be/JV-7saL9xPo Just an example I found this morning, I hadn’t realised when designing mine of other examples. https://youtu.be/sH0IZMiGxCI glad to see I was in the same mind. As some. ------------------------- tallakt | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #172 It fails the test I described; sweep a lot of area and produce electricity at low cost. Also the combination of solar and wind is a telltale noob «optimization». This is just a beautiful/ugly sculpture, but has nothing to do with lowering energy price.. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #173 It did remind me of the angel of the north. Near Gateshead. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #174 I hate to say it, but in most such cases I've seen, you might substitute "brainless" for "bladeless". Such concepts as this one are so typical and redundant: Adding solar panels to even make it work at all, a complete disregard for the main thing a wind turbine needs (swept area), and a more-complicated-than-needed and far-less-efficient theory of operation. Ideas like this are so off-base they don't even need to approach the "stuck in the muck" tar-pit stage. Instead, they represent a stillbirth, incapable of even seeing or getting to the tar pit. Besides the thousand somewhat legitimate attempts, there are the millions or even **unlimited** possible ways NOT to do wind energy ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-23 21:26:48 UTC | #175 Wow palaeontology, neonatal midwifery and spanner’s I am impressed. Didn’t think wind energy frequented such places. It must be the mass formation phycosis talking. Covid must be having a bigger toll on openness and understanding. I almost get the sense you feel threatened. Or even embarrassed. I know we ain’t seen nothing yet. If a guy made this back in 1997 what else could be out there? Unseen. Unheard of. 25 years in engineering may as well get you to the other side of the galaxy. With the millions spent on one thing or another. You be lucky if the tips of the swept area make 80% of total output. With the approaches as they are. Concentrated airflow always = high rpm. The approaches are valid which ever way you go. Be that low rpm with a large swept or high rpm and tight sweep. Dare I mention the power pod idea? I’d fear you have a full blown aneurism. It would be a shame to lose a man of that many talents. For all intensive purposes a garden podium at this stage. Somehow got you all eye twitching. Sure has it solar. it could also have any number of Awes attachments if the surface area is great enough. Bigger picture. Even old factory ventilation fan would do the trick here. To further prove concepts. Augmenting systems with ancillary attachment would certainly help the cause. Think of the advertisement potential? Or even the ability to move air around using the wind. Much like a stack ventilation system. The central tower of the Houses of Parliament. And capital hill used the same systems before they were mechanical upgraded. So I’d be fairly confident it would work. The airflow in the central tower at the place of Westminster was measured once with Micheal portillio present. at 13m/s might of been higher. trusty, tried and tested. Servers hundred cubic feet/s + silent running. Economy of scale as always comes in. It’s a well know feature of civil architecture to mask a structure true purpose. There is a few I can recall from the London Underground alone. They were not tar pit ideas. Maybe I’m coming at this the wrong angle for you. Can’t really knock the effort though. Because that’s steam at its finest. One eye in on what been and the other looks and what can be done. All while in the present. The goal is to make cheep electric right? Nothing more Cheeper than free electricity for nominal expenses. When you are brass ass broke. You get extremely innovative with what you got. For me it been 4 years of trying in secret. For the most part. In every moment I can get. Most people spend 4K a year on energy bills. When they could just spent that once on an appropriate sized turbine to meet needs. Still would need regular safety check but that were the money will be. 3-5 years running then a check. Upgrades, extras much like combi boilers.usual product care ect….so brain dead I think not. That how it done. All well know buisness models and operating procedures. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-23 22:20:20 UTC | #176 @Freeflying, nice to have some fresh, new input here, but I'm getting weary of trying to read through your long-winded attempts at a pretense of making a difference in wind energy. Bad wind ideas get old after awhile. We're really not here for just a bunch of nonsense. I don't wanna throw the baby out with the bathwater, but really, you're just coming in like a storm, but with nothing behind it but typical know-nothing-newbie assertions and pronouncements, mostly wrong. Your enthusiasm by far outweighs your knowledge. This is the kind of stuff that one could spend all day on, debunking sentence-by-sentence or even word-by-word, except your grammar, spelling, and sentence construction are so bad, it is difficult to even discern what you THINK you are talking about, let alone make sense of a lot of what you write here. I have tried to humor you as a well-meaning, curious and enthusiastic would-be contributor, and I would like be encouraging, but most of what I read is not even worded in such a way that I can make any sense of it whatsoever. Maybe try proofreading what you write, make sure your "sentences" are even actual sentences, and take full advantage of the red underlines marking all your misspelled words, then correct the spellings. Really, a lot of people look at such ramblings as an IQ test - "Can he even spell?" "Does he have the attention span to craft a full sentence?", etc. Now I don't expect any of us to have perfect English at every moment, and I will admit I see misspellings and grammatical errors in most "professionally"-written articles I read, but you take the cake. I hereby confer upon you an award for the worst English writing of any AWE chat group participant I've ever seen, in the current 14-years of hype. I originally assumed you were not a native English speaker and overlooked the faltering communication abilities, because I learned long ago that everyone has a different way of communicating and it is more productive to assess what the person is saying than how they say it, but in this case I am left wondering what it is you are even trying to say half the time. It is fun reading your ramblings, and maybe there is even a gem or two in there somewhere, but honestly, most of it is non-discernible to me as far as meaning. Try starting with the helpful red lines under your misspelled words. That is a good starting place. Beyond that I may have to start not responding to your posts because they are too difficult to wade through when trying to make any sense out of them. Spellcheck - a great advance! It won't do everything for you, but at least it is a start. Have a McDay! :) ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-24 03:23:19 UTC | #177 [quote="Windy_Skies, post:130, topic:1610"] Do you have a link? [/quote] No it was a Yahoo Group, which were all terminated, lest people be allowed to express opinions freely. In the early days, even NREL people were on it, til one day they were there no more. You could tell the bosses had decided it was a bad idea for their employees to just be out there saying stuff without it being official. The internet was free at one time. Those were the days! :) ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-24 08:30:27 UTC | #178 Frankly English was never ever strong point for me. Only basic literacy. Predictive text added more layers of mystery. Should have made it easy, nope! When my brain runs at a million miles a second. Nice to know, I actually suck at communicating. no matter where I go. I’m probably better off using pictograms. Though, I fear that would be a puppet show, and a mime act roles into one. The morning diet of YouTube for want of better things to do. the best I achieve under the layers of thought and discovery. Started today, with some interesting finds, some that are inline with the brainstorming. Others are old ideas but might help? Started the day with https://youtu.be/cJoUSHJcV4E Followed by, https://youtu.be/Rao-Kdq8lw8 Which lead into https://youtu.be/eP-YUDe9HF0 And ended with https://youtu.be/MbSjUa_6FNc Which left me wondering? Thinking awesome and how Can it be adapted? Air volume=> mass. increased flow rate. increases the volume air flow over contact surfaces. Which then means more power. Under e=mc2. never mind the similarity with singularities. due to (Black holes) vortex rings. They are depicted way back on art work. like the borre style ring chain decoration. Third from the top in plan view. ![image|500x500](upload://oaUDnq1bDH5LYW3yLTZJLhRmDf3.png) Found on a knife in Canterbury from the 10th century. But many other places as plenty on examples on google Pinterest and the like. Tom Stanton has just shown vortex stacking is very real. And possibly the most intriguing find in fluid dynamics. Couple that with vortex shedding. Then you have a few clues for the tool box. For air multiplying. If the rotor could be the turbine. Much like a spinning top. Much like finials on a Christmas tree. It would be free-flying so to speak Couple that with some of that some of my other suggestions. AWES gets it bingo moments. A full Gw. Rolling on from that. An interesting idea I got from them vortex shedding video was when looking at the whip tails. Then thinking to myself, what if they were Magnetic strip? the surface they on a conductor? On The last video in the list .I think would work better if on a big tripod. So That could freely spin 360’ much like swing at the park but full 360’. Much like a crank setup. Powered in this case by vortex shedding, resonance And gravity. My head exploded as per. Which got me here, feeling like an imposter. Recognising potential, I’m struggling to realise. I will probably go quiet. Head aches and all. Then go techno stealth ninja 🥷. It time for breakfast. a cup of tea. a breather for everyone. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-24 16:40:26 UTC | #179 [quote="Freeflying, post:178, topic:1610"] The last video in the list .I think would work better [/quote] Congratulations on ending at perhaps the silliest of the silliest wind energy wannabe device. If one were trying to construct a trap to lure idle wind energy wannabes, there is no better bait than this device that provides such a good laugh, year after year. Suitably, it is applied to an equally laughable wind resource: air movement from road traffic. You are proving to be very good at "checking all the boxes". :) [quote="Freeflying, post:178, topic:1610"] My head exploded as per. [/quote] OK is that a real sentence? Don't worry, exploding your head couldn't make things any worse at this point... :) But thank you very much for the link about magnetic gears a few days ago! ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-24 19:20:36 UTC | #180 The last video link I shared. I know is only upscale version form of hard drive reader you find in pc. Robert Murray smith on YouTube went into some detail about such devices, being highly efficient. Silly 😜 as they might be. If you only need it ? to charge a mobile phone, run an induction hob, light high output lEDs ? Its not silly at all.. I know many people with enough wire, 4*2, plywood an flat bar who could build one. Extreme apocalyptic builders. could build one. We all have probably seen a doctor who episode. where he builds the most advanced equipment out of unlikely household items. The point I’m making. for the million attempts made. It only need one to succeed. It doesn’t matter too much, about how its made. Or achieved. Just that some bothered to try. Otherwise we will all become a little ignorant with each passing day. The biggest complaint that I’ve noticed is when you go looking. to find if the technology already exist? Or even if it exists at all? That Bound to take up 90% of total production time if your lucky. I know too may people, myself including who fall into that category. Mines hyper focused ocd driven on wanting to know. So it shotgun brainstorming. Its major weakness of all production engineering. Often not stopping to realised what has been. This is the core and foundation of engineering knowledge. If it seam bad? that because it is! gone are the days, where the brits could turn out ships, ten to the dozen. Make anything on mass and flood the market. Green technology evolution has come along way since it roots. Pumping coal mine, grinding grain. Air conditioning. Cold storage wind and sails. We all know it has much further to come. Before it widely accepted like it used to be. The issue is the target audience. I could make it worse? It is only a reflection of the reality of wind energy and the market as a whole. Now with a conflict over resources looming large. that is only going to get harder. I can’t make this anymore worse than it is. The landscape is ever changing. It is never a trap to explore ideas Doug, it is why we ended up. with a million renditions of meat loaf two out of three ain’t bad. Pub karaoke nights are a big example of that. So in wind energy terms. we have a mountain of attempts. not all got up and made a difference. what it did comminuted was, a idea that it is out there! Should someone wish to pick up that mantle? and run with it! Magnetic gears definitely are something I came across a few years back when thinking I don’t have a mill to make my own gear. could I use magnets? The computer said yes! which I was thrilled with. found out about poly magnetic at the same time. Something that I knew was Beneficial to the cause. High field strength, means output. Then you have soliton waves. which can be induced in the conductor to boost ouput. Aided by poly magnetics. I can go on and on. I Just haven’t had anyone with Sufficient knowledge to ask? till recently. Totally missing a phd quantum mechanics guy To ask. In all its knowledge that’s worth more than gold. With oil industry in decline. War on the door. it about time wind energy pulled up it bootstraps. got down trading in volts, amps and watts. Just to screw with the petrodollars. And these narcissistic warmongerings. Electricity will be the new coin. I’m fairly sure about that. the best thing is the little guy can get in on it. Spend and afternoon with the kids a few tools and all is good!👍😍 Instead of the dog💩 of global warfare. Yes you have a role in that peace making. Should you want the mantle? By default AWEs architecture has a role in global peacemaking. Thats just how important it is! As long as AWEs has variety it will succeed! I’d bet £100 of the finest. that Elon musk would be on board with that! Should anyone dare ask? ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-24 20:15:37 UTC | #181 [quote="Freeflying, post:180, topic:1610"] It is never a trap to explore ideas Doug, [/quote] The idea in that video has been long-debunked in these AWE chat groups. In a real wind group, "debunking" it would not be necessary. It debunks itself. Yes it is a trap, and it even has a name: It's called the "Look, it wiggles!" approach to wind energy. I'm embarrassed to say I am the one who so identified it. We've had nutcases promoting it here before. It is a symptom of a common malady, which is thinking one can improve wind energy without knowing anything about it. There are unlimited ways NOT to do wind energy. Most people don't know the difference. The other two fallacies in this specific implementation are that: 1) moving air from road traffic is worth chasing for energy extraction, AND 2) that energy extracted would not slow down the cars, reducing or cancelling any net gain. [quote="Freeflying, post:180, topic:1610"] I can go on and on. [/quote] Obviously... ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-02-24 20:17:33 UTC | #182 Below there is a video showing an interesting invention: a wind turbine. Basic explanations help to understand how it works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy9nj94xvKA ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-02-24 23:00:06 UTC | #183 Great vid. All wind energy is a mass of swirling convection currents created by solar energy. https://youtu.be/J9uh-CyBMCs If you ever wonder what went through my head when I saw the pendulum design? Colin furze doing this. Or even a https://youtu.be/jTBDc19eW2o But with wind as it main driver. No cars needed. https://youtu.be/4xViPStT5II I am aware of the the force on the blade of a standard turbine. are very similar mechanically. To the forces trebuchets use. A single blade is like the arm of a trebuchet. Got that part. I’m also not coming from a purely wind background. I hope your familiar with involutes, as even I know you don’t need are large sweep area to generate a lot of energy. ![image|690x399](upload://qMw43iYDugFE7WJ4zIvmHA9siLH.png) Aware, turbos can run in suck or blow. It just needs to circulate around a set point to work. As far as I’m aware it works for most fluid dynamics systems. https://youtu.be/D8nSKMdYse8 To explain further https://youtu.be/nedusgCUZC4 A trick most engineering’s and one point or another have tried 1.225 kg/m3 At 15’c is atmospheric density. Air being variable density fluid. And highly viscous. So increasing it density will certainly help generate more power from the wind. Even up to the betz limit. If it wasn’t for the boundary layer non of these turbines would be possible. That i do understand. As it exploits aerodynamic to best effect. 1.225 kg/m3 at 7m/s is what I’m looking at. If that can become compressed? it is a winner. Any pressure change that induces more wind? is a winner. Plain and simple, 5kg/m3 would carry far more energy to drive a turbine, produce high torque therefore more power. Right? The issue with going big, its need more material to do so. More time in production cycles, and that Incurs cost. People loose interest. Much like magpies. Lift and drag rotors are the main types I know of. So I didn’t think I was too far out with my thinking when making suggestions. Spent most of Covid trying to learn about wind energy. I’m aware vortices can travel the length of the blade to provide lift. Or be turn inward to provide power for a drag rotor. I know how wind works wind blows blades spinning. Does in need to be more complicated? I don’t think so. As I said before, and mention again. “take what Mother Nature give you and make the most out of it.” Shake (hawt DAWT VAWT) your mother gave you. Currently trying to find the Cfd software to run on IOS. so I can get a better idea myself. That hasn’t been a joyous task. Nope no fun there. been keeping an eye here because it’s interesting. https://youtu.be/-Ch-_aoOGuo He got it to spin under 2m/s. t doesn’t have a large swept area. Which I thought was good. Didn’t know if you knew so here goes. I expect the usual professor crackpot Comments. but hey presto. I will find out later. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-25 15:17:41 UTC | #184 Reminds me of running away from girls as a kid, laughing and yelling that they had "cooties" These kinds of "fluff" videos always have some "dumb" aspect. Windmills have used shaped airfoils for 1000 years, for example, and are not restricted to "modern wind turbines". (DaVinci, Wright Bros., etc. never noticed.) And what they call "flat" blades on, I assume, farm windmills, are still usually curved (bent). Their illustration of a "flat" windmill blade, straight with rounded edges, is way too thick. Not realistic. They are losing people who might actually be interested. Then they use a quickie explanation of the discredited Bernoulli explanation of lift, saying it will force the blade "upward", never explaining that the blades are pitched so a component of lift pushes them **forward** in a circle, nor that the suction on the "upper" surface extends to the leading edge. Again, they would have lost any truly interested person. Someone who may have been interested in science will be turned off, thinking it makes no sense. Funny they start out bragging how many homes a turbine can power **"for a year"**. Outsiders, especially "journalists", almost **always** say that! "For a year!" What happens when a year is over, the turbines stop working? Warranty expired? What happened to the 20-year+ design lifetime? "Generating enough power **every year** to power 750 homes". How about just an hour, or a day? Can they power 750 homes for a day? Or is it only for a year? Then what, after a year of wind power, the homes have to find a new source of electricity? "Sorry, your year is up. Show's over. Nothing to see here, move along... What do you mean you want more power? Didn't you watch those ladies' video? It's for a freakin' year! Now get lost!" OK here it is again: "A windfarm of 200 similarly sized turbines could power over 150,000 American homes - or twice as many European homes - **for an entire year**. Did these girls not go to engineering school, to learn that "power" is **already** defined as energy **per unit time**? What does "year" have to do with anything? They just have to "say it", because they heard someone else "say it". It's as though there is something about wind energy that makes people take leave of their senses - sucking the brains right out of their heads! Would they say your furnace could heat your home "for a year"? That your car can get 20 miles per gallon... "for a year"? That candy tastes good... "for a year"? There it is again: "With a rotor diameter of 220 meters, just one of these turbines can meet the **annual** power needs of 16,000 European households." Annual. Not monthly, not weekly, not just today, not just this moment - they need a whole year. Then it's over. "German physicist Albert Betz calculated that since some of the wind must remain to keep the blades spinning, a turbine can only ever capture 59.3% of the wind's energy" **Wrong.** It is not because "some wind must remain", it is because **all wind** **must exit** the area or more wind could not move in, and if **all** the energy were extracted, **it would stop the flow.** Always funny to see people who are new to wind energy and do not understand it, try to explain it, but it happens all the time. At least they know SOMETHING though. I'll bet they at least understand power is proportional to swept area, for example. :) ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-03-01 05:52:16 UTC | #185 I’ve been toying with the maths. After being verbally brutalised. I’ve just calculated rotor mass and need some one to check. Air density travelling at speed. Which equal the amount of mass it can displace. For me I got 1.225kg/m3 traveling at 7m/s = 8.575 kg/m3 from there rotor size based on mass. E.g. Mass of air kg/m3 to mass of rotor kg/m3 1:1 ratio is 8.575kg/m3 3:1 = 2.858333333333kg/m3. I also calculated the energy for each kg/m3 at 7/ms= 84.092 J. I did a voltage calculation for every kg/m3 At 10 coulombs and got 8.41v from 84.092 J. Am I right to think that total mass of air flow before a rotor counts? If so? then the pressure of the total air flow acting on the rotor is important. Much like how if. A hole collapses. the total pressure of the soil pushes in on all sides. Is equal to the surroundings mass. Obviously air pressure and density with effect these number. I just wanted a rough idea at ball park numbers. I was trying to find a theoretical minimum rotor size. to get a theoretical maximum out. much how galileos bell experiment works. For scaling purposes. If my reckoning is right? would improve efficiency. Might even tweak the betz limit? I might have just calculated the joules its needed to turn the rotor. A smaller rotor compared to air flow would work much better. In this instance. RPMs will be much hight due to a gearing effect brought on by the difference in mass. Effectively 8.757kg/m3 can move 2.858333333kg/m3 with three time more energy due to e=mc2. Losses can be negated some what. By adjusting for resistances and contact with airflow. It may only need 2% of the mass to provide 100% of the output. Much how a Francis turbine and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-flow_turbine works. Efficiency is proportional to ration between kinetic energy of a fluidic mass and turbine mass. - resistances. Be that drag, electromagnetic friction Or displacement losses. Displacement loses being the killer. Remember you have a large volume. acting on a small volume. Which is your power creation and efficiency. It will have some correlation to total solar out put from the sun though I wouldn’t know the exact figure there. The ratio between large volume and small volume counts. Then it simple as an input output equation. If the betz limit is finite? Tweak the design to work within. So it can work to 100% capacity. I think if the known numbers are out there? then it’s becomes possible. Engineering loves datums. Base lines and the like. I ask myself the question what does it take to move the rotor? And what size does it need to be? I end up here. If someone could check my reckoning? I’d appreciate it. Thanks 🙏 ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-02-28 20:00:57 UTC | #186 Just to let you know if I do not respond it is because, at a certain point, I just can't read any more drivel. I was curious, but found myself unwilling to wade through more of what is most likely meaningless, to me anyway. Have a McDay! :) ------------------------- tallakt | 2022-02-28 21:43:31 UTC | #187 If you are asking whether the Betz limit is the true limit, I guess most of us would just say, yes, even not knowing exactly why. If you want to prove Betz wrong, the burden of proof will be on you. The Betz limit though is not maybe the most important thing. If you can extract energy at a low price that may be worthwhile, even if your windmill is not best in class in extracting wind from a certain swept area But then again, if your windmill only extracts a small fraction of the available energy, the burden of proof is on you to explain why that could be worthwhile, when windmills exist already ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-03-01 07:14:48 UTC | #188 Another way I was thinking about it. pardon the Viking inference, is a boar snouts. https://youtu.be/D-NDVhoGjO0 4:15s in, the crack team engaged the enemy. The larger mass displaced, the smaller mass with little to no resistance. This would be the wind vs rotor. Or how a rack a pinion engages. the rack, being the wind. the pinion the rotor. The measure of energy created would be the distance the rotor blade traveled. Once engaged and presented to with the wind. It’s an inequalities of scale if you will. Displacement being the key factor here. In the design of the rotor’s swept area and mass. Rotor weight & diameter in kg/m3. It would also depend on turbulence within the boundary layer itself. With the changing fluid dynamics densities within the airflow itself. If I’m on tack with my thinking there. Then it only a matter of a test rig to find out. To prove it! Appreciated the pointers. Ultimate I’m trying to find out and understand. if the betz limit can be broken? Using the power of observation. To improve rotor design. If E=mc2 has any to do with it? Maybe? supermassive black holes being my analogues for this. We also get to learn if Vikings can do science. If they can? great! If I can grab moment. i Will try to have some real time data. Should my thinking be correct. Going to let the results speak. ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-03-01 08:48:46 UTC | #189 Nice demonstration of how to break the Betz limit with a sword... ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-03-01 13:50:32 UTC | #190 Another example of this is a peak flow meter used by asthmatics. To message lung capacity. As breath is very good at creating wind like conditions. ![image|500x500](upload://3SjXXkzIzWYtw1oLgNqpSG3lBNC.jpeg) I grew up around family members who were asthmatics and used these all the time. In this example the rotor would be the measuring indicator. Just to give an idea of scale. Got a fair idea how it would work. Peak flow will help determine the amount of available energy. In any given area. In old steam money, that’s stroke length. that’s directly related to volume of energy imput. In kg/m3/m/s2 should give the total energy value for Any give gust. If I recall my science right a car hits a stationary object 50mph will fair better than two car hitting head on. Obviously you have a high energy penalty to start with. To turn the rotor. but once going it don’t take much to keep it going much how flywheels work. If the rotor is for eg. A third the mass with the wind mass acting upon it. It should need less energy to get going. Which is your basic power bell curve. The peak of that is your energy requirement to move the mass of the rotor in kg/m3 With regards to inertial transfer. ![image|690x460](upload://7NoI9s0X9Uhrg5RC2skslh81w3A.jpeg) Should look a bit like this peek flow graph. Wind speed, air volume vs rotor size. 1:1 relation should be where it maxes out. In my case 8.575kg/m3 for 7m/s windspeed. Based on air density in motion for any size rotor. I know that this will vary in variable wind conditions. Depending on a compressing and decompressing wave fronts. Rpms should follow a similar curve. According to rotor size. Low rpms at 1:1 scale and high rpms small scales. Choke flow must be accounted for. If the boundary layer separates. Which might Be the Leading cause rotor stalls. Depending of class of rotor. Ww2 pilots know a little about that phenomenon. Where props failed to bite. So like many greats hit it with a sword and hope for the best. It how Alexander the Great beat the Gordian knot. So could be how today’s science guys bet the betz limit? With something pointy. ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2022-03-02 17:55:57 UTC | #191 https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/t4xfph/location_of_wind_turbines_in_europe_oc/ ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-03-02 21:25:39 UTC | #192 https://i.redd.it/l7ocyxok8yk81.png It is impressive what the Danes have achieved. I remember a report of them exporting energy to the rest of Europe.The uk is not all that far behind them. Coming a close 6th place globally. still plenty of room for improvement. the English Channel is ripe for wind energy. I know where i am. there was a massive dispute over where they wanted to place the wind farm. Between the needles and old Harry rocks. It was in the local news and the Bournemouth echo. Didn’t help that we then had a mobile drill rig turn up. which was here for weeks.our local council had something to do with that. Furzey islands oil/ gas field see further exploration. there is competing interests locally. We have one of the largest solar farms in the uk. Right next door to the airport. Over 100 acres or more it just keeps growing. The farmer has many a side buisness. Like camping and wwoofing. It is link to the major estate holders in the area. I’m fairly sure if you tickle them pink. they jump at the chance of extra revenue streams. It very long winded. Parley court I believe is responsible for the up keep of the solar farm. Though don’t quote me on that. North of the airport it extends further. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-03-03 13:32:14 UTC | #193 [quote="Freeflying, post:190, topic:1610"] If I recall my science right a car hits a stationary object 50mph will fair better than two car hitting head on. [/quote] Well, actually, you do NOT "recall your science right", and the word is "fare", not fair, and it's "two cars", not "two car". "Science" says two cars hitting head-on is the same as one car hitting a stationary object. And next, like every newbie who has never made a single Watt, you, in your infinite wisdom, are going to disprove the Betz coefficient on paper. But you don't seem to be able to even write a single sentence without multiple errors of every kind! I swear, I could debunk every single sentence you write. Just decided to do a quick check of this group to see how retarded it has quickly become. I wish you would just stop. ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-03-03 16:31:33 UTC | #194 Im meant to have a scribe, as one not available. can’t afford to pay for one. Or know where I can find one. I blue screed long ago. From my list into eternity. Of things I don’t find easy. Debunk my thought train if you will. I know my grammar. got dragged through the hedge backwards. Still trying to convey something. however gobble it is? Sure it a jumbled mess but FYI im autistic. I have acknowledged I could be very wrong . Being as curious as I am. What your seeing is insanity level on C.o.D. To think it was going to be easy? Nope! Yes I would have flunked a lot. without help! Might not be chancing my luck here. Might not of even known you existed. Total feel like a Roman try to learn Latin. Remember Einstein, he had my kind of problems. But came up with e=mc2, Or Stephen hawking. Who had nought better to do. than ponder about the universe and dream about black holes. Forgive my broken English, ive had a life time of this. From my bros. And others. It very isolating. Just so you know! If I know anything? hawking, never stopped trying! nor will I! I’m might not be the best. but I’m still trying! As people used to say, they do love someone who try’s. Btw what are batteries? I’m fairly certain. I can make a few watts out of that! With Jumper cables and car batteries. For a kid that grew up with meccano, and most of the tactical toys. a 80s, 90s kid would have. Plus the odd trip to the science museum. I disagree. “With never made a watt in my life”. Statement. I hope you know what a wimshurst generator is? Used to love playing with them at the electricity museum. In my local town when it was there. Even loved the plasma orbs as well. Sure I can’t compete with the big boy yet! Some of the worlds biggest “retards”, advanced the world so much! we owe them a debt of gratitude! Going as far back as it can go! If it were not for then? no LHC. No warp theroy. No getting of this rock. No room to grow. If not for their hyperfixations and willingness to explore ideas. or reuse the ones we have differently. we would, be done for! Forgive my messy thoughts. it just they way I am! I know I will be corrected for something. Hence can you check my thinking? We all need those datums. the rest just follows on from there. That is the spirt of STEAM fields like ours. Ive said more than once. just a guy with the spanner’. Correct me where I’m confused. Oh thanks for straightening me out. On the car thing. My thinking at the time. was car meets car and the forces added together. Happy to clarify the best I can. Be on your square, and have a nice day!😜 ------------------------- PierreB | 2022-03-03 17:13:05 UTC | #195 [quote="Freeflying, post:194, topic:1610"] Remember Einstein, he had my kind of problems. But came up with e=mc2, Or Stephen hawking. [/quote] So there is hope. :wink: ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-03-03 17:20:08 UTC | #196 Ey, there some. As long a science greatest curse stays way. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-03-03 18:07:42 UTC | #197 [quote="Freeflying, post:194, topic:1610"] Correct me where I’m confused. Oh thanks for straightening me out. On the car thing. My thinking at the time. was car meets car and the forces added together. [/quote] OK when two identical cars traveling the same speed crash head-on, the point of impact does not move. Same as a car hitting a completely (theoretical) unmovable object, usually said to be "a wall" when this question is entertained. Contrast this with two cars of varying mass or speed, where the point of impact moves, and one car or the other has an "advantage". I did not read that whole post - too much to read - just noticed one sentence that jumped out at me as incorrect and difficult to comprehend. Now this may sound harsh, but you have to understand, as I've explained many times in the last 14 years of AWE popularity, my experience in debunking "windsanity" goes back much longer than that. How? Well, please pay attention to this because I've had to spell it out several times in that 14 years: 1) Wind Energy has always been a magnet for crackpots, because the wind is invisible, so people can (and do!) imagine it behaving however they want. But wind doesn't necessarily do what you want. It does what IT wants... 2) Airborne Wind Energy is a Neodymium Supermagnet for crackpots. Why? Because with the introduction of a true unknown, seemingly "anything goes" - in many peoples' minds, "there are no rules" and a certain highly-insistent personality type believes this lack of standards makes their prolific-yet-unorganized thoughts suddenly valid and accurate, without any actual validation. Typically, believing they are undiscovered geniuses of the highest order, these people tend to repeatedly bring up "Einstein", "The Wright Brothers", and really ANY and EVERY passing "genius" thought coursing through their highly-active-yet-even-more-highly-disorganized brains. OK I am not the one running this site. But if it were a building, with a sign on the front, that sign would say "Airborne Wind Energy". What it would NOT say is "Welcome to the Happy Valley Mental Hospital." There is a saying: "It is good to have an open mind, just **not so open that everything falls out**". Now before you say the analogy of a mental hospital is farfetched, please consider, This "discussion" has been going on since 2008. In that time, we've had many companies come along declaring that they "will" develop airborne wind energy, often giving dates by which they "will" power X hundred or thousand homes, usually in a remote place. The people running these companies give all sorts of details about how wonderful their wind energy systems "will" be, but in the end, none of it comes true. Similarly, take a guy walking down the street talking to himself. OK not unusual, you might say, we all occasionally talk to ourselves. But this guy is actually talking to imaginary people. And not just to rehearse a speech or something, he actually THINKS the "people" he is "talking to" are really there! He is "out of touch with reality".. Some people would just say "crazy". Now take a guy who convinces a large group of people he can re-imagine and improve the art of wind energy with his proposed flying contraption. Is what he is saying for real? Or is it imaginary? And if it proves to be imaginary, not real, aren't the key personnel almost as "crazy" as the guy walking down the street talking to imaginary people? In both cases, it is delusional people with a wrong idea in their heads, acting as though the wrong ideas are right, when they are not. People with experience in wind energy, especially those of us who have seen the pattern over a couple of decades of all the typical things the newbies think and say, can immediately flag most of these people as legitimately "crazy", yet, like the guy walking down the street gibbering to himself, they can't understand the reality we see. They just say we are "closed-minded" or "mean", etc. We know, they don't. It is that simple. We're familiar with the "mental disorder" from which they suffer, having seen all the "symptoms" many times over, long before "airborne" entered the fray of "improved approaches to wind energy". We know all the symptoms, we've heard all the "arguments". We know what they are going to say before they say it. They "are the next Einstein", They "will disprove the Betz coefficient"... etc. Now why would someone enter the world of wind energy and immediately declare their first order of business is to invalidate the main, longstanding rule of the Betz coefficient? As though they are already making SO MUCH POWER that exceeding the amount of power possible to extract from a continuous flow is all they have left? Why? Because they are out of touch with reality. They don't know how to make ANY power, yet they think Betz is what is "holding them back" But they "are like Einstein", so they will "rewrite the rules". At no point do they ever just make lots of power **within** the Betz coefficient. No, that would make too much sense. Remember, they are "crazy", so don't expect them to suddenly start making sense! If you tell them they have never made a Watt, they will try to come up with a wise-ass answer, like they once connected a car battery, flicked on a light switch, or turned a generator by hand. No, we are talking within the context of wind energy, but in the end, the crazy people just want an excuse to go on with more crazy talk. The last big example we had in AWE was one of the people running "the old forum". Ironically, that in itself seems to occasionally be one more "symptom" of "the craziness". A way to "feel like" they are at the cutting edge of wind energy, without having to prove it. His strategy worked in that case, because it allowed him to keep going on ad infinitum, and when anyone protested he could just have the "correct" post deleted, and pretend his "incorrect" posts were the new way of thinking, even though he never really ever got anything worthwhile running at all, let alone enough to make a difference. When I say someone "has never made a Watt" in a wind energy discussion, I am talking about a Watt in wind energy. Meanwhile all Betz says is you have to leave enough energy in the wind for it to exit the area, or you won't be able to have any new wind enter the area. Now that sounds pretty logical, doesn't it? New air has to enter, therefore old air has to leave, therefore old air needs to still have **kinetic** energy left, for it to **move** out. Actually it is extremely simple, and not arguable, yet people still do. Why? Because from that standpoint, they are verifiably "crazy". We know it. They don't. If one person says "We are developing airborne wind energy and will power X-hundred homes in location Y by date Z." (which is usually "next year") we can say they were "mistaken" when it doesn't happen. But then when ANOTHER guy comes along and says THE EXACT SAME THING, we might start to notice "Hey, didn't the last guy, who turned out to be crazy, say that exact same thing?". By the time you have hundreds of people ALL saying they WILL power X hundred homes at location Y by date Z, (next year) you MIGHT see it as a bona-fide mental illness, with specific symptoms, just like the guy walking down the street angrily arguing with imaginary people. At some point you can see this is "a syndrome" with long-recognized and well-defined "symptoms", which never seem to change much. This was going on in wind energy before Airborne Wind Energy became a popular topic, and continues on in spite of the accumulating evidence that it actually amounts to a common mental disorder, always with the same symptoms. So I would just say, noting that there IS NO sign here saying "Welcome to Happy Valley Mental Hospital", if someone has a contribution or question related to the serious topic of airborne wind energy, which is now PROVEN to exist, this is the place for it. If, on the other hand, their mind is so open that "everything is falling out", maybe they should consider actually DEVELOPING an AWE solution THEN hitting us with it, rather than just using this place as a dumping ground for all the stuff "falling out" of their "open mind". ------------------------- Rodread | 2022-03-03 18:31:07 UTC | #198 It is a much more simple common delusion than you suggest Doug It's belief in the worth of money. To get any financial support for a project you have to promise exactly what you just described to folks who may not have a clue saying they WILL power X hundred homes at location Y by date Z, (next year) is basically compulsory in an energy systems business pitch ------------------------- dougselsam | 2022-03-03 19:31:25 UTC | #199 The definition of insanity is **doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result**. The statements are false. The people making them are either lying or delusional (crazy) - take your pick. ------------------------- tallakt | 2022-03-03 20:05:06 UTC | #200 Einstein always did really well in school, and worked really hard to come to where he did. And he was standing on the shoulders of giants, having deep knowledge of physics knowledge that came before him. I think for people to compare themselves with Einstein looks simply bad. Just comparing as someone who does not seem to know a lot about the Betz limit saying thay it can be broken. I do invite you to join the discussion. But the way you are going about it does not come across as very sympathetic. Maybe focus less on changing the world and more on baby steps? ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2022-03-03 20:53:50 UTC | #201 [quote="tallakt, post:200, topic:1610"] Maybe focus less on changing the world and more on baby steps? [/quote] That's against human nature. Learning you need to separate a big problem into many small parts and you need to set achievable goals - take baby steps - comes from learning from not doing that and failing. Everyone starts out trying to shoot for the stars, that's fun to imagine. But I agree. One giant baby step would be for example to build your own small wind turbine from plans. You learn a lot and you get free electricity at the end hopefully. Another small step would be to go here: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-physics ------------------------- Freeflying | 2022-03-03 22:33:50 UTC | #202 Yes, this is true. Learning is little by little. I know I have the parts I need to a working mock with my skill level. Its funny you should mention building one. As I was wondering which bits of scrap to sacrifice for the efforts. Helps sitting on a junk pile, of useful bits and bobs. Even if going to look like a scrappy scratch build. My parts list, Bicycle wheels. Belts Universal motor 5*2 joists Drainage gutters. Prefabricated metal sheets. I’m good for a ground based test run. Even if I had wait awhile for some bits to become available. Shouldn’t be bigger than the width of a washing machine. Thanks for the sign posting. To relevant information 👍 that was far more helpful. Also very informative. 2014 I started this journey into renewables. Hours of vids later. Here i am talking to to the brains of the industry. I never thought I’d find my way here. Or anyone with some degree of knowledge. Knowing it wasn’t a task I can take on alone. Not without guidance from those who know. YouTube is helpful. without it I’d be non the wiser. Or even know what to look for. To begin to understand. YouTube has its limits. So learner guides are much better. Further more If we have motors and technology? that is rated to be 90% or higher in efficiency. It stand to reason the betz limit. can be at some point surpassed. Based off what I know is out there even if. I’m not the guy to do that. Its just one big meccano set. Just waiting to be bolted together. I know that’s possible. If nothing else. So many thanks to all here. -------------------------