The ignorance goes on... and on... and on...

Lounge
1

I was amazed to read this article about one more “Professor Crackpot” proposed “project” in Interesting Engineering magazine:
Due to global warming derangement syndrome and zero knowledge of wind energy, this guy is “planning” to build a 5 MW floating offshore Savonius 100%+ solidity drag machine - uh huh - cuz he really knows what he is talking about, so he got a big article and we should pay attention to what he says because he knows nothing, believes anything, and repeats a lot of well-worn lies:
LINK: We need to rethink solar and wind power. Here's why

image

A GIF depicting drag-based wind turbines versus conventional “lift” ones. Source: Ssgxnh / Wikimedia

Drag-based wind turbine systems could circumvent intermittency issues

Cann’s firm broke with convention on wind technology, and moved away from the traditional three-blade system, opting instead for a drag-based system. “If you’ve ever seen windmill-based systems like those used in the 1930s that pump water out of the ground — that’s called a drag-based design,” explains Cann. And this design had several advantages. Low cost was primary — “the cost of raw materials is incredibly low,” explains Cann. But the higher utilization rates that come from floating platforms were equally important. These go to “60 or 70 percent,” says Cann.

But most crucially is the way drag-based design circumvents intermittency issues: “It doesn’t rely on high wind speed,” says Cann. “The performance is lower relative for to three-blade systems, and but drag based wind turbines can operate from lower for wind speed.”

(OK sounds pretty whacky to me - and where is the proof-reader??? - Doug Selsam)

But none of this will have a lasting effect if it can’t be scaled. Luckily, it can. “The drag-based three-blade system can definitely be scaled,” Cann tells me. “Right now, there is a 1-MW turbine system being built, and we’re using that to validate the output,” he adds, referencing his firm’s efforts to develop a scalable version of floating drag-based wind turbines. “Then we’ll build a 5-MW version, which will be put on a floating platform.”

“The 5-MW machine will be a default mass-producible unit that will be on a floating platform, and those floating platform machines can go up to 100 MW. Crucially, each floating platform also doubles as an energy storage system,” says Cann. And this system takes wind power beyond electricity and conventional power grids — tapping into the wider infrastructure where it hits us closest.

2

Ok it seam far too many are bystanders. Given very little opportunity to properly asses these issues. If I was being fair there certainly a few things that could be done to help. Options that very few would consider in the short term. But for long term viability. This guy stand a better chance of pulling off 5mw with the methods hes using. Yes it a favourite of mine. He’s running a few project at the moment. Outsmarted many in his field by simplicity alone.

Obviously a large od would work out much better as a generator.
He’s investigating low friction bearings.
I have suggested a torque convert as main bearings. It prefabricated and only assembly with it the rotor blades would be needed. I know I’ve been saying it that awes suffers a lot from simplicity issues. Many others on here have complained about it from what I read. As it stand there is hardly anyone with the manufacturing capacity to keep pace with growing energy demands. Ive heard it would take a factory to crank out 100 units a day to meet demands. It would need over a million factories globally doing the same to keep up. I dread to think of the overheads.

I agree that awareness of green energy is rather slim for a joe normie. From them it’s like waking up after hitting the bricks wall. Top mark for cold starts as they say. Floating platform, a great idea! I just wonder if it’s worth the expense? Better off finding a decommissioned oil rig. There been plenty of memes going around asking exactly what climate they wish to change. It is a question if the earth has the manufacturing capacity to pull of a basic shift. To go full electric. Never Mind the long term risk. From prolonged generation.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, electricity production creates heat. High voltages needed for transmission create arcs. Arcs are plasma, and plasma can ignite the atmosphere. Hence the Auroras. I wonder if co2 isn’t the issue. As it one thing that keep the cold from biting. I reckon it the amount of energy we’re adding tho the system that’s cause temperature to rise. Im yet to see a graph correlation between electricity use, population growth and rising temperatures.it would need to go back to when electricity first hit the mainstream. I don’t think when your average guy sits to have his cuppa that this even crosses the mind. Anyway food for thought.

3

…and on… and on… and on… :slight_smile:

4

Must of sounded better in my brain. I question if it is ignorance at all? Or just a sheer Unknowing. Its really important where it come from. With the most potent cocktail of attributes. adding the the populations bewilderment with regards to wind energy is it any wonder people get mixed up. Like many others it usually the quickest cheapest and simplest methods that win out. It doesn’t mean they’re the best. but if it does the job it most likely to reach an audience. Anyone with a rye bit of smarts knows this. The wheel of want does run people down. I see no end of that. Obviously there is a core to what the green sector wishes to achieve.

.1. Blades and rotors
.2. Reduced friction and air resistance
.3. Materials
.4. Efficient power generation
.5. Generator designs.
.6. Manufacturing and market deployment
.7. Investment and returns

Most won’t have the grasp to begin with. So when attempting to get a tin can of the ground. Makes it look like a monty python sketch. Along the line have you seen my magic gourd? Totally agree there is much more people could do to understand electric better. Just to get to grips with it. As thought is the foundation of most thing people do. Just to have the inclination to beginning with it but a small miracle. If 5MW is the benchmark? Then it a quest of what to do next? My guess is production and distribution. Is humanity as a whole ready for this? Or are we still got the primitive pars of our brain ruling the day? Is it ignorance i don’t know? As I fear it much much more than plain ignorance of the facts.

5

He’s good
This guy might be Popular Science Inventor of the Year

6

A new type of VAWT that is easy to build

From about 20:30-21:00:

The blades collapse as they move against the wind, offering less resistance to the air.

7

This idea seams ripe for improvement.

Ye old tight whiteys.
Added bonus of twin layer construction.
Hoist the main sail! captain underpants to the rescue! It not the only drag reduction device out there. Working on the same principles.

Hawt for example.
Just needs a shroud and splitter for maximum effort.
Great vid on drag reduction. I reckon if you could have a flexible coating on then sails the you reduce the drag co-efficient.
I know two place where it found. Engineering aerospace and marine engineering. Hydrostatic force acting on the rotor surface are the main cause of drag. Nature uses various ways streamline things. sharks and insects both use nano structures to smooth air flow. In some respects ye old tightly whiteys can do the same. I’m just wondering if it could be done here?

8

I agree that folding the upwind-traveling blades of a Savonius (drag) type vertical-axis turbine would be a logical approach. Even I, with my vast knowledge and experience with wind energy, am not immune to wanting to tinker with such inadvisable design directions as drag-based vertical-axis turbines. I can just picture a big one in my backyard right next (below) to the 10 kW unit on the 120-foot tower.
Meanwhile, this guy has re-created the Magenn rotor, with its floppy fold-back blades. A few “symptoms” of “the syndrome” (like red spots for chicken-pox) are:

  1. using a household fan as a “wind tunnel”.
  2. Pursuing vertical-axis drag-based machine indoors in front of that household fan
  3. not connecting a generator
    These people represent the “look, it spins!” crowd.
    Funny, he starts out worrying about how to pronounce “turbine”, as though that really matters. At least he admits Savonius is scam territory - there are many stupid investors.
    “A very flimsy support can be used!”
    (yes when you are fooling around making zero power, you can often use minimal support)

OK next video, Jim had a technological breakthrough: He got rid of the trash can!

Wow, Jim decided there was no reason to add a trash can in the middle of his turbine. Good thing he didn’t file a patent requiring a trash can in all claims. Nobody knows why he didn’t just start with a wire spool in the first place if he wanted a big tube in the middle.
So if you want to watch his whole next video, it is the same design, but with no trash can. Oh and at the end he does place it outdoors, but there is little wind that day (luckily, so it held together), so again, he asks you to stay tuned and watch his next video, wherever that is… :slight_smile:

9

OK I found Jim’s next vertical-axis turbine.

He’s replaced the trash can with arms of PVC pipe.

Did you know another symptom of “The Professor Crackpot Syndrome”?
Using PVC pipe.
Indoors.
Using a fan.

See, the good professor is stuck on “amateur hour”.
He basically has zero machining or fabrication skills, so on the periodic table of the elements, he recognizes the best element for strength and ease of fabrication has the chemical symbol PVC.
That way, he can build to his heart’s content, without the need to develop any skills.
Best of all, his results will be weak and floppy, so he can just pretend it doesn’t work that well because it is just a “prototype” using PVC pipe, and then, instead of showing any results, he can send you off to watch his next video.

10

On the other end of the awareness scale.

Flappy vents. Just as it happens. He was looking at at ways things could be done. He even built

It was very on point. AWES knock yourself out I as can see the sparkly eyed dreams. Coming to life. I think what really count is these chaps have taken a look around. assess the access to materials. To shake what their mothers gave them. It something that get those cogs turning and the world working.

11

Ahhhrrrgghh I’m sooo conflicted
I want to see that flap video but I really don’t want to see that flap video.
Might look at it through a vpn etc later so the Internet doesn’t know what I did

12

There always incognito. There no shame in exploring YouTube. I hope no give you the stick or confession spoon. If someone sad enough to route your dirty laundry. remind yourself it not you that has the problem. Gdpr to the rescue! Anyway who has that right anyway? We all herd revenge stories gone wrong. Don’t be conflicted. They have no right to stop you learning. If they do? there are things that can be done. I’d normally advise a big pokey stick, but as that not allowed. A few sharp points and stiff words in a interview room should do the trick. The best thing is you can watch vid and have a pint of favoured beverage. no fuss. I’m fairly sure there a few rules up there that can play to your advantage. Watch the flappy video. Own it! because no one should dare stop you.

1 Like
13

When he showed the flap panels for the “octogon” I was relieved he didn’t use them to make my favorite idea for a Savonius turbine, using flap panels as blades.
But then in the second video I see he did use the flap panels to make a Savonius.
Oh well. Has anyone heard of that being done before?
Seems like reducing drag on the upwind-traveling half of a Savonius turbine would be a good idea.
There are many possible variations on that theme.

14

He is ill, I can figure out some crackpot syndroms symptoms :rofl:

15

And also stacked Magnus effect kites of the Savonius type (Magenn) could transmit energy with drive cables to the ground station without the need for a right angle drive (I preach the false to know the true).

To prevent the cable from jumping, make a deep cut in the discs, and perhaps use a (but not too) elastic cable.

That said, the use of a single Savonius kite could facilitate the operation and limit the risk of cable jumping since only one cable drive would be used.

image
image621×750 134 KB

16

Energy loss in a belt and pulley drive is mainly due to elastic effects provoking extension and contraction of the belt, thus warming it. So not sure using an elastic for transmission is wise.

17

The elastic rope drive would remain stable in length even with low tension, and would only lose its length in the event of a lack of tension, mitigating the risk of come out. But indeed in all way an elastic rope drive could not prevent extension and contraction at the pulley.

18

Maybe you could wrap the rope once around each rotor.
Meanwhile, this seems to be heading toward a “laddermill”.
Which leads to SuperTurbine… (or it once did anyway, back in, what was it, 1978?)

19

Anyway, back to the original article this topic was about, so much of it is just wrong. It makes no sense:

Drag-based wind turbine systems could circumvent intermittency issues

“Cann’s firm broke with convention on wind technology, and moved away from the traditional three-blade system, opting instead for a drag-based system.”
*** OK so he contrasts a “3-blade” system and a “drag-based system”

“If you’ve ever seen windmill-based systems like those used in the 1930s that pump water out of the ground — that’s called a drag-based design,” explains Cann.
***Next he describes an old-style farm windmill as a “drag-based design”, which is a borderline case that is debatable.

“And this design had several advantages. Low cost was primary — “the cost of raw materials is incredibly low,” explains Cann.”
***OK so is he saying he will build giant 100% solidity multiblade rotors, like farm windmills? AND “the cost of raw materials is incredibly low?” Yes but he wants to use 50 times as much material for his 100% solidity rotors as a regular 2% solidity rotor, so the cost is way higher anyway, PLUS way less power can be produced from the same size Savonius turbine. AND they would blot out the sun and completely block anyone’s view! is this guy smoking crack or what?

"But the higher utilization rates that come from floating platforms were equally important. These go to “60 or 70 percent,” says Cann.
*** OK so he is renaming “capacity factor” as “utilization rate” and is crossing up “floating platform” with “drag-based machine” - makes no sense…

“But most crucially is the way drag-based design circumvents intermittency issues: “It doesn’t rely on high wind speed,” says Cann.”
*** OK so now he is talking about getting a fraction of the energy of a lift-based rotor, but bumps up the capacity factor due to the limited output of the machine allowing it to produce a lower “full-power” more often. To start, is it even true? And if true, would it justify using many times the material to build far less-powerful turbines?

“The performance is lower relative for to three-blade systems, and but drag based wind turbines can operate from lower for wind speed.”
*** And see how the sentences start to not even make any sense here? Is this a real quote, or two misprints in one sentence? This is idiocy piled upon idiocy!

“But none of this will have a lasting effect if it can’t be scaled. Luckily, it can. “The drag-based three-blade system can definitely be scaled,” Cann tells me.”
***OK wait - so he just described an old farm windmill to rationalize using a drag-based system, (since some call the farm windmill “drag-based” due to its high solidity and low RPM - debatable) but now he has deftly switched to a Savonius machine - the least-efficient type of turbine known, which has a fraction of the power of a farm windmill, without even mentioning the fact that he has just switched horses midstream without even mentioning it!
*** And in the same sentence, he asserts, with no reasoning presented, that a 100% solidity Savonius machine “can be scaled up”, going from 1 MW, to 5 MW, then, because he invokes the word “floating platform” suddenly he is at 100 MW!!! Does this nutcase have any idea how large a 100 MW Savonius machine would have to be? Heck, it would reach halfway to outer-space! What would it be made of, reinforced concrete? The size of Mount Everest??? How many million tons would it weigh? more than the three-Gorges Dam? OMG!!!
All I can say is, when you read ANY article on ANY new “clean-energy” concept, read carefully, because 99% of the time, you are reading utter nonsense, usually being promoted by people who can’t think their way out of a paper bag, unable to reason or even write a coherent sentence!

20

So to stick with the theme, here is another video of that same “know-it-all” tinkerer with the British accent, explaining how farm windmills would be better for generating electricity in a “built-up environment”, as though HE is the first person to even think of this and that this long-disproven idea is “true” because of his flawed beginner-know-nothing-newbie reasoning.

We are SUPPOSED to believe that he KNOWS MORE ABOUT WIND ENERGY THAN ALL THE EXPERTS because he fools around with spoons and HAS A BRITISH ACCENT, but what is he really doing? He is ASSERTING that a farm windmills converted to electricity-generation for neighborhood homes will save the planet. BUT he conveniently AVOIDS the OBVIOUS QUESTION of whether anyone has TRIED using the old farm windmill to GENERATE ELECTRICTY. Well the answer is YES IT HAS BEEN TRIED.
In fact, the FIRST ELECTRIC WINDMILL used the old farm design:
image
And that was the last one - people quickly figured out that the requirements for keeping cattle from dying of thirst was different from the requirements of generating electricity, and moved on to lower-solidity rotors with their lower use of materials and higher speeds.
HAVE PEOPLE TRIED CONVERTIN FARM WINDMILLS TO ELECTRIC?
YES!!!
Here;s an example from 13 years ago - still running today?

You might notice they did drastically reduce the rotor solidity in this one case.
(Looks like a Daisy rotor to me. In wind energy, “new” inventions are rare…)
Anyway…
Most attempts just leave the old blades on the old 100% solidity rotor.
Anyway, several people have tried this conversion, and the result is always the same: They have to choose between a belt-drive or a chain drive or a gearbox, and they slowly figure out that the best way is the way everyone has been doing it for many years, with a high-speed 3-blade rotor, no chain or belts, with direct-drive or a gearbox.
SO, while many people watch Youtube videos thinking they are absorbing cutting-edge knowledge from a guy who really knows his stuff because of a British Accent, in reality they are just watching a know-nothing spew his own ignorance as though it were cutting-edge knowledge, but it is not - it is all just a big load of nonsense!.

1 Like