Searching \ for '[TECH] New (?!) wind turbine design' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=new+wind+turbine
Search entire site for: 'New (?!) wind turbine design'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH] New (?!) wind turbine design'
2009\03\12@071503 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Note: Should be on TECH
Not electrically related at all per se.
MIGHT be used to drive something electrical.

> Has been discussed/reinvented (Olin ?) here before.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMo7IsMOlnk

Olin's worked differently but was of vaguely similar principle.

This one is callen a Panemone (Pah nem on ee).
Gargoyle knows.

Invented in one form by the ancient Persians.
More recently (a few years ago) by me.
In between by many other people.
I have a large one (non functional at present) in my back yard.

People reinvent this and variants continually. You can find US patents from
the 1800's showing complex versions.

They are fun to watch, and may even be useful.
I have some ideas for variants, if I ever get back to them. I'll probably
find that they are similar to things made in the 1500's :-)


Russell

2009\03\12@080341 by olin piclist

face picon face
Changed tag to TECH as it clearly should have been in the first place (duh).


Peter wrote:
> Has been discussed/reinvented (Olin ?) here before.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMo7IsMOlnk

Yes, I had this idea quite a few years ago.  Finally three years ago I
created a computer animation of it and also mentioned it on PIClist, partly
to provide a provable record of public disclosure.  Take a look at
http://www.embedinc.com/wind.

I wanted to send whoever put up that video a email, but there wasn't a
obvious way to do that.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\12@082955 by olin piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Olin's worked differently but was of vaguely similar principle.

All I saw was a small video where the turbine itself was small compared to
the frame.  As a result I couldn't tell how the blades were being pivoted,
only that things looked just like my idea at that resolution.  Is there
somehow more information associated with that UTube video?  It would be
interesting to see a diagram of what this guy built.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\12@083912 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Has been discussed/reinvented (Olin ?) here before.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMo7IsMOlnk
>
> Yes, I had this idea quite a few years ago.

Olin - you may have missed the fact that your version was geared :-).

This one uses free swinging vanes that are trapped against their arms
downwind and then swing free to trail in the wind when they "overcentre" at
the bottom.
(although the video is so bad that having built one oneself helps see what's
happening)

I have  alarge version in my backyard (made from a rotating advertising
display stand) and real state plastic "Corflute" sheeting.

> http://www.embedinc.com/wind.

> I wanted to send whoever put up that video a email, but there wasn't a
> obvious way to do that.

The original inventors of the idea have been dead some thousands of years,
and no copy of their video has ever been found.

Various 1800's US patents show similar devices.
A NZ Farmer 'invented' a version surpsiringly like mine a few years before I
did - bit I knew not of it until after I had thought of it.

Your one has the good and bad feature of having gearing.

In operatioj mine is fascinating as the vanes assume the "correct"
orientation but not necessarily where one would always expect. Wind swirl,
velocity and acceleration changes and more modify air flow and the vane
takes the vector sum and sits at the most energy neutral point. Fascinating.

I'll post a photo someday.


 Russell


2009\03\12@085340 by olin piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> This one uses free swinging vanes that are trapped against their arms
> downwind and then swing free to trail in the wind when they
> "overcentre" at the bottom.

Huh?  Do you have a diagram or something?

I couldn't tell for the very low resolution pictures how the blades were
being rotated.  He didn't use big fat gears as in my animation, but I used
those mostly to make the concept clear.  He could have used sprocket chains
for all I could tell from that video.  The paddles seemed to pivot according
to how the vane rotated, so there was probably some mechanical connection?
If not, why have a vane?

> (although the video is so bad that having built one oneself helps see
> what's happening)
>
> I have  alarge version in my backyard (made from a rotating
> advertising display stand) and real state plastic "Corflute" sheeting.

Do you have a picture that shows the mechanical details?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\12@090524 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Do you have any data on the wattage produced, and basic dimensions of
turbine?


> I have  alarge version in my backyard (made from a rotating advertising
> display stand) and real state plastic "Corflute" sheeting.
>  
>

2009\03\12@090854 by Enki

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

This one doesn't even need wind:

Boswell Power Production Unit Runs Continuously Even Without Wind:
 
http://pesn.com/2009/03/11/9501531_Boswell_windless_turbine/



2009\03\12@094558 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> This one uses free swinging vanes that are trapped against their arms
>> downwind and then swing free to trail in the wind when they
>> "overcentre" at the bottom.
>
>Huh?  Do you have a diagram or something?

The diagram in the first link you find when doing Russells suggestion of
searching Google for 'Panemone', that he gave in his first post on this
thread explains it beautifully.

Direct link.
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/albie/projects/panemone.htm

2009\03\12@095223 by olin piclist

face picon face
Enki wrote:
> This one doesn't even need wind:
>
> Boswell Power Production Unit Runs Continuously Even Without Wind:
>
> http://pesn.com/2009/03/11/9501531_Boswell_windless_turbine/

Maybe we need a new tag [BS] or [SNAKEOIL] or something.  Here's a heretical
thought: How about we stick to real physics!

This nonsense would be a lot more funny if it wasn't generating public
mistrust of valid renewable energy products.  Still, some of this stuff is
worth a chuckle, like:

 "while in reality, the module was not at all dependent on wind
 but was harnessing free environmental energy of another variety
 altogether."

I note they never explained what this other variety of "environmental"
energy was.

 "but actually gets its energy from some kind of electromagnetic
 phenomenon available constantly,"

Oh, "some kind of electromagnetic phenomenon", that makes it all clear.  Why
didn't they say so in the first place!!?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\12@100529 by olin piclist

face picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> The diagram in the first link you find when doing Russells suggestion
> of searching Google for 'Panemone', that he gave in his first post on
> this thread explains it beautifully.
>
> Direct link.
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/albie/projects/panemone.htm

But that's not what the video showed.  Note that the panels in the video
were rotating a 1/2 turn for each turn of the turbine.  They weren't
suddenly flipping over at the back.  It also looks like the panels are
pivoting in the center as required by my design, not off center as required
by the design in the link above.  The design above has no vane since it
doesn't need one.  Mine requires the vane to keep the panels oriented, and
the video clearly showed a vane with the orientation of the panels appearing
to follow the vane as the wind direction changed.

I think there is a linkage between the vane and the panels, just that it's
difficult to see in the video.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\12@111049 by Gaston Gagnon

face
flavicon
face
www.ekotekoo.fr/Auto-construction-d-une-eolienne,149.html
Gaston

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2009\03\12@113535 by olin piclist

face picon face
Gaston Gagnon wrote:
> http://www.ekotekoo.fr/Auto-construction-d-une-eolienne,149.html

This is definitely the same concept as mine.  The bottom picture shows a
sprocket chain linkage between the vane and the paddles, just as I figured.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\12@121623 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> I still believe that with gearing and an alternator/dynamo the
>> whirlygig on my roof should be able to produce enough power on a windy

Direct drive is often best.
Extactor fan thinggys can make and have been used to make power.

Power ~= V^3.A.k
The trick is in the K.

Drag = 0.5 Rho A Cd V^2.
Power = V x drag
= 0.5 Rho A Cd V^3.

Rho = 1.3 kg/m^3.
Cd approaches 1.
0.5 is usally ~~~= 0.5

Power = 0.65 A V^3 MAX MAX.
Real world start with k = 0.1.
Depends muchly on technology and goodness and wind speed* and ...

* efficiency of variousunits depends ij part on speed, as opposed to just
power.

For 10 m/s wind
For 1 m^2.
Power ~= V^3.A.k
= 1000 x 1 x 0.1 = 100 Watts.
Maybe double that with an OK HAWT.

HAWT are (almost) always  lifttype. Tip to wind speed may be 3:1 - 12:1.
At 12:1 t sounds like a banshee and the balde edge vanish.

VAWT vary.
Panemone is almost pure drag.
Like Olins and mine.
Efficiency low.

Savonius rotor -  oil drum halves, buckets, wheelbarrows, anemometer cups,
... were long thought to be pure drag but can be shown to also have some
lift with tip/wind speeds of 1 to say 3 maybe.

Pure drag always has t/w < 1

Darrieus  Rotor VAWT (elegant eggbeater things) are pure lift and don't self
start if foils are fixed. People angle foils dynamically and get self
starting.

DR efficincies much higher.

N (usually 3) rotor things with vertical constant shape blades are pure lift
usually.

VAWT makes bad sense economically for material usage and bearing forces and
more BUT may have a place if you are doing something special.

I intend / hope to make a VAWT that will start in a whisper of wind,  make
SOME power in 2 whispers of wind, have one moving part, last 20 years,
require no maintenance and survive ANY wind. We'll see. Makes pathetically
small power often but makes at least pathetic power almost always.

We'll see.

My Panemone is probably not practical but its fun. Has good abilityto start
ij minimal wind as upstream vane is perfectly feathered so no real upstream
drag.


         Russell







{Quote hidden}

> --

2009\03\12@124011 by Gaston Gagnon

face
flavicon
face
A thorough presentation by Pierre Dieudonné was presented at "34ième
Salon International des Inventions des Techniques et produits nouveaux"
in april 2006 at Genevève
http://www.eolprocess.com/start.php
Gaston

Gaston Gagnon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2009\03\12@124445 by olin piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> VAWT vary.
> Panemone is almost pure drag.
> Like Olins and mine.
> Efficiency low.

I haven't really looked into efficiency of mine and make no claims, but you
seem to be assuming that drag implies low efficiency.  That seems to be a
common myth out there that the equations don't support.

"Lift" means that the blade is acting like a airfoil.  That by itself
doesn't mean that it can extract more power from a fixed wind over a fixed
area.  The real advantage of a lift design is that the blade can by
phsically small, and due to its iherent sideways motion intercepts more wind
and therefore its effective area is larger than itself.  It is more
efficient in terms of power per blade area, but not power per wind area
intercepted.  As usual, there is a lot of hype, and terms like "efficiency"
are generally not properly defined before being used.

There is no one obvious "efficiency" measurement.  From a physics
standpoint, the most relevant efficiency is probably power per wind area
intercepted by the whole turbine.  Lift has no iherent advantage over drag
here.  From a practical standpoint, power per $$ is the most relevant since
there is often no real limitation on the wind area that can be intercepted
except for cost.  Smaller blades may cut cost and therefore produce more
power/$, but that is far from a given.

By the way, I calculated that for maximum drag power, a object in the wind
must receed at 1/3 the wind speed.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...