Why do you keep saying that?
This has been said, why would it be a lie?
And thatâs not the root of the problem which is: does it work well?
I would like to add a little to this discussion to make it slightly more nuanced:
What is a sale? For a normal person, a sale would mean exchange of money vs product. It the product is a wind turbine, one may assume the turbine is installed and producing useful power. This would be part of realization of the sale.
Is it still a sale if no money changes hands? Maybe someone would take the cost other than the end user.
Is it still a sale if the turbine produces no useful power? Some may want to purchace the kit for other purposes (eg. PR or learning the technology). Grid connection may not make sense.
It it a sale if it is purchased as a spare part going to storage or maybe stored as military preparedness equipment?
Is it a sale if the customer pays, or even just signs a deal, but no turbine is yet installed? The turbine may not be planned to be installed in years, and maybe cancelled before it happens. There are several financial reasons why this could make sense (eg. financial requirements when applying for public funding)
I think Im just scratching the surface here. I think you should expect startups to stretch the definition of a sale for some reasons. For the rest of us, equipment sold for cash producing useful energy is really what we would like to count. So I think maybe @dougselsam is closer to the truth here in saying maybe these reported sales may not be clear sales as we would expect them to be.
I would also note that many of the constructions described above would probably constitute good news for the general audience that would merit some reported news from a startup.
Lets hope in the near future, Skysails will report how their sold turbines are being used and delivering useful power. I expect they will if they can. This is not against Skysails in particular (who seem to be on a roll lately), rather just how things are probably done in general.
1 Like
If you guys canât see the pattern by now, thereâs no hope for you. You live in a world of fantasy and outright lies. You all sound like some 5-year olds debating whether Santa Claus is real or not. âYeah but how can he fit down the chimney? How can he get to so many houses in a single night?â Can reindeer really fly? I donât know, mom said reindeer can fly! Why isnât the sleigh hanging down?"
There is no person I can think of involved in AWE efforts who has ever produced or even been in any way associated with an actual power-producing wind energy system of any kind. To me, that means there has never been anyone involved who has any actual interest in wind energy in the first place. And please, don;t tell me about Fort Felker - he was a bureaucrat, hired away from a possibly useful job in wind energy due to a misjudgement, and is no longer involved in wind energy.
What people are looking for is a fun activity, knowing their fun is enabled by global warming derangement syndrome. I like kite-surfing cuz kite-durf9ng is fun, so I found a fun job, âsaving the world!â!
BTW, hereâs a latest GE turbine that snapped a blade due to gusty winds offshore here on the East Coast. What do you think that says about an even larger turbine withstanding a category-5 hurricane? More fantasy.
Fort Felker.
He is a reference.
With an AWES, this would not have happened because it would have landed before the hurricane. Thatâs the first explanation. The second explanation that this canât happen to an AWES is that none of them are in service. 
Fun is good.
Logo uninspired
Two unrelated charging apps, for cars and phones
Do you have a link to a report on this?
As far as I was aware, Vestas has not issued any reports on the performance of their multi rotor device tests
1 Like
Hi Rod
Not really. I just keep up on this sort of stuff over the years, and there have been quite a few decent-sized attempts by large manufacturers, with results that nobody has ever bragged about, and none being promoted as a good solution so far, with the issues I remember being mutually interfering oscillations, and they probably donât end up saving enough material to make it worthwhile. But at least they tried. 
New âProfessor Crackpotâ article:
Ignorance on steroids. They never stop!
They even use the obligatory âWinds of Changeâ subtitle that they all think is so original.
Same S***, different decade.
Creating wind energy using planes, trains and automobiles? â DW â 07/25/2024
Hi Pierre:
It was not a hurricane that snapped the GE blade, just some gusty winds.
GE Vernova says it was a bonding issue in the blade manufacture, and they have a fix.
Iâm thinking such a fix would be very difficult for existing blades. Especially ones already mounted on turbines!
Touche`
@dougselsam
According to my quick search
There were no reports of oscillations or vibration problems when Vestas or Sandia tested multi-rotor systems
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/which-wind-turbine-manufacture-RnIaHy0xSfSNvaCP9KgnCw
Self reported bias here
Iâm pally with the Myriad Wind Systems dudes
Yeah, well, with âartificial idiocyâ (A.I.), everyoneâs an instant armchair expert.
I guess all the years Iâve spent hearing about the problems of multi-rotor systems donât count for anything.
The Myriad Wind project looks, to me, like some guys who spent a lot of effort and computer time, and Iâm gonna guess a lot of money, to achieve a way over-engineered version of what a few guys using some waterpipe and 4 cheap over-rated turbines from Ebay could have done in a weekend or two, and the rest appears to be all-talk, wearing badges at trade shows, making big, empty promises - typical time-wasting, energy-draining, hand-waving and happy-talk. Good luck to them.
But I will say, this is all âpreaching to the choirâ with regard to me, as I often muse and make sketches over this exact topic. There is no law against supporting multiple turbines on a single structure. Just because some efforts had vibration issues doesnât necessarily ruin the whole idea, at least I donât think so.
Thanks for the refreshing burst of positivity Doug
My instant expert AI pal says
None of the turbines on the GE vernova farm were multirotor
And your headline states that it was a manufacturing defect in the bonding
Resonant vibration doesnât seem to be an issue yet and seems unlikely given that the turbine structures will have been studied for exactly this problem before manufacturing
GE Vernova blade broke âduring testingâ at Vineyard Wind project
A GE Vernova turbine broke during testing at the US flagship Vineyard Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts, and remnants may soon fall into the ocean, the projectâs developers believe.
by Ros Davidson
Link below:
First power from Vestas four-rotor concept
DENMARK: Vestas 900kW four-rotor concept design has delivered its first power as testing continues in Roskilde, Denmark.
by David Weston 4 July 2016
Link below:
Hey Rod:
Nobody ever even implied the failed turbine at Vinyard Wind was multi-rotor. If you need âA.I.â (artificial idiocy) to tell you that, it doesnât say much for you being plugged in to wind energy.
As far as your âpallyâsâ at âMyriadâ, their video shows them gushing in slow motion over the blades of some of the cheapest turbines available, with a design directly copying the old Air 403 and Air-X designs from the now defunct SouthWest Windpower which was an early home wind turbine manufacturer, run by friends of mine, located in Flagstaff, Arizona, with the nacelle modeled after the designerâs girlfriendâs calf.
That company went bankrupt due to excessive warranty returns on their largest offering, that had only two blades, and therefore suffered from - drumroll please - harmful oscillations and vibrations that reliably tear two-bladed turbines apart as the wind changes direction (which is solved by multi-rotor designs like nine - I have a 2-rotor turbine with 3-foot rotors thatâs been running for about 12 years now.)
Outsiders to wind energy, and machine design in general, simply have no idea about the problems of vibrations and oscillations, but they basically rule engineering, and almost always have to be addressed in rotating machinery of any kind. Someone who has only hacked together a few slowly-rotating toys that quickly disintegrate may not have developed an appreciation of such subtleties yet. Wind turbines need to have long-term reliability, and any unwanted oscillations are almost always a long-term problem.
Someone can look at the 22-foot diameter, half-ton turbine on my 120-foot tower, and think it is all just a green-planet fairy tale, but place your ear on the base of the tower and you will hear a cacophany of activity going on up there, and youâll feel the tower wiggling and vibrating from the various vibrations and oscillations of just a single turbijne actually producing reliable power. I remember many years ago, the manufacturer had to beef up their tower structure using solid steel struts instead of tubular struts, because towers were shaking apart over the long term.
Now the design used by âMyriadâ is endlessly copied in China, because I guess they canât come up with their own design. Meanwhile the âMyriadâ promo tries to say itâs 4-turbine array has a rated power of 2 kW, which is not correct. That type of turbine is lucky to eek out 300 Watts in a strong wind, typically regulated to stall above that level, and certainly not capable of a sustained 500 Watts.
âReal wind peopleâ donât take those 46" diameter copycat turbines seriously, and it is at the very lowest level of wind energy to have a tilt-up tower at such a low level. Not that thereâs anything wrong with mounting a few on a common frame, but a few pieces of waterpipe with fittings, and some welding, would get you there more easily than hiring out machine shops to build expensive, over-engineered, custom trusses with a lot of wind resistance. Meanwhile, since the âMyriadâ renderings show exclusively arrays with rows offset laterally from the row below, for closer spacing, with the upper rows having more turbines than the rows below, why didnât their prototype have 5 rotors, with 3 rotors above, and two below, to actually demonstrate their supposed concept?
Additionally, their website makes claims of more power by reason of their rotor placement, which tends to make no sense, and stands out to a âreal wind personâ (me) as a very typical, desperate, attention-seeking, fraudulent claim.
Their renderings of their multi-rotor arrays, if looked at carefully, would be unlikely to support the turbines mounted on them, in strong winds. Way too flimsy. This is almost always what you get when people with no field experience try to imagine wind turbine designs and mountings. Never beefy enough to do the job.
So you can talk about âpositivityâ all day long, but promoting bad ideas, being unable to execute good ideas, not to mention outright fraud, are not positive, but flagging these characteristics could be seen as positive, and for âreal wind peopleâ, it is. Have a McDay!
1 Like
1 Like
Can we please add an AI device for forum discussion and progressive sentiment language analytics to help structure these threads?
Doug
Do you just need an argument?
I wonât read a complete rant
You seem to have switched stance on multi-rotor
First you loved them , then they were obviously problematic, then youâre into them, then nobody else could possibly build one right âŠ
Youâre surely the greatest so go and (swearing) do it
More Windiocy: for you - donât be another example!
US to Trial Run Japanâs Unique Wind Turbines That Generate Power Even at 7mph (msn.com)
Frame 1)
âUS to Trial Run Japanâs Unique Wind Turbines That Generate Power Even at 7mphâ
©Canva/Kanoa Winds Inc
Weâve already seen these âpress-release-breakthroughâ Savonius turbines from Japan. OK so if youâve been paying attention, you already know that 7 mph is a meaningless bragging point, since there is almost no power to be extracted such a light wind. Notice they include a solar panel. This is so they can be seen to at least produce some minimal amount of power.
Frame 2) âEach wind turbine can produce up to 6 million kilowatts annually, which is enough to supply between 1,000 and 2,000 homes every year.â
The promoters donât even know the difference between a kiloWatt and a kiloWatt-hour. And I guess theyâre still trying to figure out how much power the average home uses in a year.
And they seem compelled to add âper yearâ regarding how many houses it can power, never explaining why on day 366, the turbine is suddenly unable to power that same number of houses(?). They are unable to comprehend the difference between energy, and power, which is energy per unit time. This is another example of âartificial intelligenceâ - itâs not restricted to computers. Iâve also heard it called âStupid smart peopleâ. Whoever wrote this article is probably being tagged as âreally smart peopleâ by someone. meanwhile, we know they are just more âidiotsââŠ
Frame 3) âWind Turbines Are Too Large and Need Very Specific Conditionsâ
Yes, they need 8mph WINDS (gasp!) and MUST BE SPACED APART, REQUIRING LAND - who knew?
But these entirely worthless mini-turbines that rely on an attached solar panel for even a symbolic teeny output donât need much land cuz they are too small to really matter anyway.
Frame 4)
âJapanese Company Has Created a Wind Turbine That Solves These Problemsâ
OMG, here we are again, ignorance on steroids! The âproblemsâ are too much swept area (essential) , and targeting useful windspeeds (appropriate)! The wind is invisible so they can say anything they want and people will just believe it! These people are completely unaware of the topic about which they write, yet they go on as though they are documenting the second coming of the savior!
" With these issues in mind, a Japanese company set to work to create an innovative new wind turbine that took up less space and functioned properly with less wind."
Oh, I see, the âissuesâ of requiring swept area and actual wind to produce wind energy - they;ve solved the problems! Just donât make any power and, problems solved! An âinnovative wind turbineâ. - How about âan ignoramus wind turbineâ?
Meanwhile, back in reality-land, a wind turbineâs potential output is literally defined by how much space it takes up. It happens to have a name: âswept areaâ. And âfunctioning properly with less windâ, fine, as long as âfunctioning properlyâ includes almost zero output - but then what is the point? In this case, all it simply means they have no idea what they are doing.
" Finally, they designed a streamlined turbine, known as the VCCT, with unique, counter-rotating blades that allow the turbine to generate substantial energy from winds as low as seven mph and as high as 134 mph."
Whoa - here we go again! âStreamlinedâ Huh? how do you figure? A barrel is more streamlined than a blade? Itâs going to keep producing during in this case what, a category 4 hurricane? They just have to say that, right? Why? Because they never have to prove it, so they can say anything, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. Sure. As long as it âsounds goodâ to other idiots. Iâd bet it would end up in the next county if a 60 mph wind hit it. See how wannabe wind energy is like a disease? Always with the same, predictable symptoms?
Frame 5)
"Advantages of Japanâs New Wind Turbines
©Kanoa Winds
Additionally, VCCTs take up far less space as their blades are internal. Therefore, they can be placed much closer together than traditional wind turbines. VCCTs are much shorter at only 23 feet tall, instead of nearly 400 feet, so they wonât disturb the natural landscape.
Not to mention, these turbines are far quieter than traditional design, so they wonât disrupt residents living nearby."
OK, so they donât take up much space, blades are âinternalâ, are much shorter at only 23 feet tall, so they have almost no swept area, and canât reach above the lower energy winds at ground level.
Basically, they are trying to cite all the disadvantages as advantages. The real message is these turbines canât produce enough power to bother with in the first place. Luckily, they have a little solar panel so they can pretend to produce at least something.
Frame 6)
Birds! of course the next predictable talking point! âThe VCCT wind turbines in Japan have been known to have birds nesting within the device, proving the safety and coexistence between the birds and the VCCT technology.â The âlast, desperate gaspâ for unproductive turbines - bird friendly - of course, since they do nothing, and it is one more largely irrelevant factoid that other non-wind people eat up, since it is the only thing they think they understand about wind turbines.
Meanwhile, there is almost always a bird perched on the tail of my 10 kW regular old turbine, and maintenance includes cleaning up all the bird poop inside the nacelle, where they like to nest.
Frame 7)
OK, thereâs that idiot-newbie Makani-esque logo with the swirly wind graphic again. Another verifiable symptom of crackpot wind energy. I just wonder, do any of you see the distinctive pattern here yet?
Frame 8)
" Kanoa Winds explained specifically why they chose Hawaii for the initial project: "Hawaii is currently heavily dependent on petroleum for its energy needs, more so than any other state.â
Ahhh, deployment on a remote island. Betcha never heard that one before, huh? Letâs check the next box here for complying with the predictable pattern in crackpot wind energy - remote locationâŠn Where few people understand anything about wind energy, and will just believe anything. Perrrrfect. Nobody will ever know (or care) when it fails⊠It will just be dismantled after it turns out to be a nuisance and is blow apart at the first storm.
Frame 9)
"The Hawaii Community Development Authority Is Thrilled With the Project©Hawaii Community Development Authority
The Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA) has partnered with Kanoa Winds to build the first VCCT unit near the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation Entrepreneur Sandbox in Honolulu.
HCDA executive director Craig Nakamoto explained, âWe are very excited to be collaborating with Kanoa Winds to test this technologyâs small but mighty ability to harness the power of wind, for a new alternative to Hawaiiâs clean energy future.â
Wow, another âincubator babyâ - checking the next box for failed wind energy ideas. Trying to think of a successful wind project from an incubator. Canât think of one. Yes they are âthrilledâ at what will shortly be dismantled and forgottenâŠ
Frame 10)
Well, if this doesnât work out, there is always Dougâs design for floating wind:
Frame 11)
Wind Turbines Could Help Save the Planet From Climate Change
©Freepik
As Kanoa Winds mentioned, wind turbines will help Hawaii create a more âsustainable future.â If the VCCTs work as theyâre supposed to, this new design could and, hopefully, will be utilized all over the continental United States.
OK so this is where they basically admit they are suffering from âglobal warming derangement syndromeâ. They suddenly admot, they don;t even know if these âwill work as theyâre supposed toâ, but of course, if they do⊠- if they do⊠if if if well then they can be utilized all over the U.S.! Nice ending! A whole big, bag of misinformation, half-truths, and outright lies, as the next entertaining wind energy"press-release breakthrough".
Frame 12)
âReally Smart Peopleâ
checking the next box for future-failed wannabe wind energy designs: talking about how âsmartâ the developers are:
âSome say that renewable power sources like wind turbines and solar panels will never be able to replace fossil fuels. However, if the smartest minds on the planet keep working to build more efficient models, they could prove the naysayers wrong in no timeâ
Ahhh, so I guess these long-proven inefficient turbines are now âmore efficientâ, the developers are âreally smartâ and the only problem is ânaysayersâ
I hope you guys can see how all these symptoms are clear indicators of what could be seen as a diseased portion of an otherwise productive industry. :).