Nice and useful videos, but also some misinformation, according to the comments.
Dump load solution in case of power outage, to prevent the water wheel free spinning: https://youtu.be/DInwut0DzTQ?t=358
Talking about generator sizing: https://youtu.be/DInwut0DzTQ?t=1150
And taking it apart: https://youtu.be/DInwut0DzTQ?t=1989
But, the comments say he overlooked some things:
I noticed a few such points, but it seemed to me he had at least most of such basic knowledge. An electric motor or generator will have a rating for continuous output (as opposed to peak output). That rating is to be taken literally. The problem is Chinese companies (and sometimes others) are just trying to sell a product, with so many buyers unlikely to even find a use that will challenge their cheating ways, and more buyers unlikely to demand a refund, or want to pay for return shipping, they make money, which is their main goal. They are not held to any standard. They donât have to do honest business. They donât care about a reputation enough to be honest.
One big warning sign was when this buyer decided to order another alternator rated at twice the capacity. Turned out it was the exact same size, with a different wire thickness in the windings. This means the manufacturer took the lowest-common-denominator shortcut of just making a higher-voltage or lower-voltage unit, and falsely giving it a different power rating. Unfortunately this buyer did not know to check the weight and dimensions to see if the comparative rated output matched the comparative weight and dimensions.
One clueless commenter, whose comment you refer to: âKris, have a rewind done on that motor in thicker wire to give you the 2.5 3kw that your needing. Sure it can be done by a rewind company in the UK and be cheaper then the cost of your time and materials on reworking the mounts.â
That is wrong. The commentor, like you, knows NOTHING of the subject matter here.
My generators (for example) of the same size can go from 12 Volts to 400 Volts, depending on the wire thickness. Thinner wires allow more turns, which increases voltage, while reducing current capacity before melting the wires or burning off the insulation. Either way, same amount of copper fits in the same size case, giving the same continuously-rated output. Iâve shown a video in the past of me getting 5000 Watts from a thin-stator version of my alternators. That same alternator is good for 1 kW continuous output.
You can get many times the rated output out of most any generator or motor, for a short time. Continuous output means the wind keeps blowing at a steady rate and you need to alternator to handle the same high output continuously, which will tend to make it overheat. This is so elementary it pains me to have to explain it yet again. sheesh! What the heck kind of forum is this anyway, do you have to be a complete idiot to be here? Or just to run it?
The power rating of any motor or generator in the same package, with the same weight, containing the same amount of copper, will have the same power rating, with only the voltage at which it produces this power being different.
This stuff is so elementary it is like trying to tell a child a stove is hot so donât touch it. Many people have to find out for themselves. I guess your theme here is still being in denial that generator size has anything to do with continuous output capacity. I guess that places you in the category of a âcopper denierâ. Thereâs a new term for you.
Well, all I can say is just look at the world around you and, the larger the capacity, the larger the generator. For electric cars they use liquid cooling to squeeze more thermal capacity out of a certain size motor, using software and sensors to prevent the driver from overheating the motor by limiting its power output in response to temperature.
This is why they have to start with a fresh, cool motor to set the 0-60 mph records, etc. The hype never mentions this, nor the fact that aggressive driving, using high-speed chargers, and actually using the full range by fully charging and discharging the batteries will severely reduce battery life.
There is no point in me sitting here trying to explain the most basic ABCâs of a generator to people who purport to be seriously interested in systems (such as wind energy systems) that would have the main use of driving a generator. It is pointless. I think this topic is called âslow chatâ for people who are slow to catch on to basic facts. 
Jack of all trades, master of none, I guess. First is system engineering, deciding that a generator should go there, and a motor there, and after that the more rote questions of which generator or motor, which you can decide when you get that far, and ask a subject matter expert about, or read a book about.
Like when sketching a horse, you first start with drawing a rough outline, and later add more and more detail.
Better to go read a book about it I guess, or ask somewhere else, or ask a better question. But thanks for the parts of comments that were informative.
I had posted an extensive explanation about motor/generator size, continuous output and thermal dissipation capacity, within the preceding week or two. I guess you didnât care to read or understand it. Itâs really not that complicated. Power is voltage x current, so thinner wires allow more turns = higher voltage, but less current, so the power is the same, and heat dissipation is unchanged. Know-nothing commenters on Youtube donât know about any of these basics and think you can change the power rating by rewinding. Not likely, since most motors will already use all the available winding space for copper. Why would they use an enclosure with extra room in it? Not economical.
Heat dissipation is the limiting factor, therefore you can always get huge amounts of power from small motors or generators in short bursts, but continued operation at that level will destroy the insulation on the windings, which will then short out, braking the rotation. Since hot wires have more resistance, it becomes a self-accelerating process, once a single âhot spotâ develops. It can happen quickly, or more slowly, which is why companies release turbine models that subsequently burn out. because even if tested on strong winds, they encounter the same winds for a longer time period once out in the field in various locations and environments. It can sometimes smell REALLY bad, even from a distance, depending on the materials, and sometimes melt the wires. Iâd be surprised if the terrible smell is not toxic. It can happen in the middle of the night, at which point the turbine might be so loud it wakes people up a half-mile away. Terrible noises, terrible smells, then you have to start over. Deskbound know-it-all beard-strokers have no idea how difficult wind energy can be, and thatâs if you already know what youâre doing. If not, youâre not a player and have no chance.
In practice would this be a limitation for Makani type flygens which concentrate a lot of energy at a high rpm for small dimensions?
Hi Pierre:
It would be an obvious major limiting factor, concentrating as much power as possible, into as small (lightweight) of a generator as possible. Whether in any given case, it is sufficiently addressed, would be impossible for me to comment on just from a glance. As stated, you can think youâve got it handled, until high power generation persists for a long period, at which point you suddenly find out the bad news: You didnât have enough copper or heat dissipation, and you ruined another generator.
Hi Doug:
Do you think that Makaniâs designers were able to identify this problem, and try to find a solution, or ended up understanding that the smallness of the generators could not be solved for long-term use instead of than short demonstrations?
It sounds quite possible, but I have no way to know.
The difference between real wind people and armchair amateurs is whether they have a stack of burned-out stators! You donât know where the limits are until you cross them!
This is all the more difficult to know since other problems intervened, making it impossible to know the lifespan of the generators in flight even if they had a low lifespan potential.
In French language then Google traduction:
Les moteurs sans balais correctement entretenus peuvent fonctionner pendant 10 000 heures ou plus. Cela reprĂŠsente plus dâun an de fonctionnement continu.
Properly maintained brushless motors can operate for 10,000 hours or more. This represents more than a year of continuous operation.
My take was they were relieved when it crashed, giving them a plausible âreasonâ to quit their pretense, which was getting a bit nauseating.
Hi Doug:
âCrackpotâ, âknow-nothingsâ, newbie", âall roads lead to SuperTurbineâ, âidiots, idiots, idiotsâ, âarmchair inventorsâ, âreal wind turbine peopleââŚHavenât I forgotten anything? 
OK Pierre, last I saw, we were discussing guyed towers as though they were unusual, when they are the norm for towers of all types. Now weâre adding that, like the strings of a guitar, there is an optimal tension for the guy wires. As usual, the entire conversation assumes nobody in AWE has even the most basic knowledge of wind energy, this after 15 years of AWE. Weâve been discussing adding a sealed piston to support a turbine at the tower top using compressed air. Now youâre adding the common âProfethor Crackpotâ idea of translating the rotation of a turbine at the tower top, to the bottom, so as to be able to place the generator at the bottom, as though this idea hasnât been discussed for literally 100 years and counting, with no successful examples. People want to engage in idiot talk, forever, never having the least bit of knowledge of how things in wind energy actually work, and nobody is supposed to notice? This is âthe land of the lostâ, and someone has to stand up and say it out loud.
I added the following message which you didnât mention:
Doug:
You should know that the world of working wind turbines continues its path without worrying about AWE, whose failures have been known for several years, whether it is reeling-kites, flygens, multi-rotors (invented and discussed for decades without any real outlet commercial and whatever the configurations: no road leads to the SuperTurbine ⢠which is like a fishing rod at the end of which you would be incapable of lifting a small tuna unless you have a huge kite).
Iâve described the lack of basic wind energy knowledge that resulted in 15 years of failure for the entire time. Not always easy to be the lone voice in the wilderness, but at least a few of us have been willing to occasionally stand up and point out reality.
Above all, we have equations that are impossible to solve, at least as long as better designs are not considered.
As you mentioned, a generator is heavy. And an in-flight device must be light.
We therefore have either crosswind kites (flygen or reeling-kite) which optimize the power of the kite but move very far from the requirements of traditional wind energy, or good static systems carrying a turbine (classic or the Kiwee ââtype) but which cannot scale much, above all with a generator aloft.
Hi Doug,
Can you name a single concept or even a prototype discussed on this forum, including mine, including yours, that is not a crackpot design, that is not far from the art of current wind energy?
Naming the concepts of others and newcomers in this way is a bit like the hospital making fun of charity.
Pierre: There is no expectation of anything here aligning with any known standards, or even common sense, let alone comprising anything factual. I realize that is a strong disconnect with any viewpoint based on actual wind energy experience, engineering standards, or the requirement that any proposed improvement in wind energy even be self-consistent, but I guess the true-believers with no standards of pretty much anything here should decide whether they are truly looking for wind energy solutions, or are instead looking for a mental health refuge from reality for their own entertainment, with no expectation of anything but fiction appearing here. Not trying to make anyone feel bad, but some people do have standards. To be taken seriously, something has to at least be self-consistent and make some sense.
Doug: What you say could very well be conceived within the framework of wind energy as it is practiced, but not within the framework of out-of-the-box concepts including AWES.
I see no meaning in your statement. Empty words. I started pointing out a few specific issues. Nobody has addressed any of those. So, without any feedback on the few issues, of many, I mentioned, Iâm throwing away the baby with the bathwater on this one. Thatâs my opinion. I guess anyone, including you, would be welcome to present a comprehensive analysis of such factors, but with no knowledge of wind energy, how would anyone reply anyway? And what good is it to see more nonsense on wind energy from people who donât grasp the basics?