The debunkers add little value because the “idiots” (if we could playfully use that standard term-of-the-art), are incapable of hearing what debunkers try so hard to clue them in to. Example: Kleiner Perkins fell for a ducted turbine scheme, and seemed unable to comprehend my warnings that simply explained the problem was it increasingly used too much material per unit power as it was made larger, plus noise, a resulting high-solidity rotor that then ran slower and became less efficient. They fell for the line that swirl contours inside the duct would make ducted turbines a success this time! Nevermind the fact that they had recently failed in a big way - no matter - swirly contours were all you needed! And these are “the smartest guys in the room”… Go figure.
The regular wind turbine rotor is the product of 3000 years of evolution. Vertical-axis was superseded by H-A well over1000 years ago in the Greek islands where rotors consisted of rings of interconnected triangular cloth sails mounted on radial sticks, spinning in a circle on a tower. Rotors started using regular propellers with defined dual-surface airfoils 500 years before DaVinci invented the repeating pistol that freed humanity from the king’s knights, but failed to comprehend reality with his helicopter design. DaVinci’s heck-of-a-lopter was easily debunkable, even at the time, by just looking at the windmills that had already been in operation for 500 years.
The Wright Brothers wind tunnel experiments resulting in single-surface airplane wings were also easily debunked by looking at these same dual-surface hard airfoils on windmills that had been the standard for 1000 years at that point.
(I’d like to put together a video debunking the great geniuses.)
Yes they made huge progress, but in retrospect they didn’t really know what they were doing in many ways. Still they changed the world.
The symptoms of GOOD wind energy concepts include:
high swept area for the material used,
steady operation,
crosswind blade travel,
high blade speed, and so far anyway,
placement into high speed, steady winds
blade rotation.
Blades configured to avoid unnecessary forces
“Look! It wiggles!” is a symptom of monkeypox - er I mean “Professor Crackpot”.
Little-to-no swept area is another symptom. (like the wiggling pole from vortex-shedding)
Anything that shakes or wiggles or reverses direction in any way is in possible danger of wearing out quickly - a short service life in many cases.
Adding intercepted area in any way that disproportionately adds excessive mass and/or expense is another symptom.
Forcing too much air thru a rotor so it has to be a higher-solidity rotor that thereby spills power is another common symptom.
Rotation slower than optimal is another common symptom.
Talking about the vastness of the wind resource with diversionary statements such as “It has been calculated that wind power could provide 4x the energy used today” is another symptom. As though they need to explain that wind energy is even “a thing”, rather than explain how their version is better.
Large, heavy structures with tubes that pipe wind to a central location for energy extraction constitute one of the dumbest, yet common crackpot schemes.
Saying you will power X hundred homes in remote location Y by date Z is another common symptom, and I think this one may be exclusive to AWE. Altaeros, Makani, even that latest article about Skysails mentions powering “50 homes” on a remote island.
The word “pyramid” is OK with me, as long as it does not refer to the sales tactics of the company. I’m trying to remember if anyone has had a pyramid scheme for a crackpot wind energy idea - Seems like there should be one - like vaporware squared - a vaporware business structure around a vaporware technology. Quite appropriate, actually. Maybe the Windtree spinning roof ventilator debacle selling “sales territories” qualifies as a pyramid scheme. Imagine, an idea that WILL SURELY change the world, and YOU can buy the sales rights to an ENTIRE STATE!!! This could be a great path forward for AWE! I can see it now! At any rate, WIndtree sure made a big splash at the time.
Reversing cycles are another big red flag: Steady-state operation is the key. Reversing forces are hard on materials and will cause failure eventually, whereas steady-state rotation keeps forces more consistent, for years of trouble-free operation.
Related: Interruptions in output (time of mo production) is another red flag that seemed to emerge mostly with kite-reeling.
Related again: USING excessive power through part of a cycle might be a very big red flag - again this symptom seems to emanate mostly from kite-reeling. However using some power to optimize blade surfaces (pitch blades for example) is how the best turbines work, but they are making power during that time, and the power needed is low compared to output.
Soft fabric working surfaces are one more warning sign. Can’t think of them ever working out. Wearing out, yes, working out, no.
Generators at the periphery of the blades are another common misstep - a “solution-in-search-of-a-problem”. That was how the Honeywell roof-mounted turbine started out. They kept eliminating all it’s key distinguishing features eventually, but in the end it was still just a turbine mounted in a poor wind close to a rooftop - no tower wanted for worthless turbines - the symptoms are so consistent…
Building-mounted is another common monkeypox symptom. Not that it couldn’t ever work, but noise, vibration, and wind blockage and turbulence seem to be difficult challenges.
Can’t think of an example of anyone happy with a building-mounted turbine. Aerovironment had a few on Logan Airport - they are long gone.
Professor Crackpot, knowing not much of anything about anything, loves to ignore the concept of placement into the smoother and faster winds at higher heights. It is extremely rare to see a crackpot turbine placed on a decent tower for this reason. Vertical-axis turbines, even darrieus, are almost never on a high tower. In fact I’d say you are more likely to see a savonius on a high tower than a darrieus. In both cases, you start to notice the pattern of ignoring every known aspect of wind energy, including basic factors like simply exposing your device to actual good wind.
Anyway, this list is by no means exhaustive - just the crap that came to mind at this moment.
But it includes most of the areas of concern, I’m sure I messed a few.
The point is, these symptoms often go together. Most crackpot wind energy concepts violate multiple known advantageous features, not just one.
Why? I know, I sound like a broken record, but repetition is how you learn:
“The wind is invisible, so people can imagine it doing whatever THEY want, but the wind does what IT wants to do.”