Indianapolis wind power contract canceled

kadaka (08:09:34) :
You will not find any reference to this turbine technology. I was the “crack-pot” that submitted this technology to Manitoba Hydro which did not go past the engineers the first time as it was thought to be too delicate for hydro power.
This technology is actually an inverted turbine so that water is split by a slightly concave cone that has blades that turn energy from a verticle to horizontal plane at an agle of optimization. This center is fixed and does not move but it splits the energy and directs it at all 360 degrees. A turbine with 180 blades on the circumference of the circle picks up all the energy working together for the maximum amount of torque. I slightly modified this design when I discovered all the math and science as to why this is so powerful and why the current turbine are actually only 2% efficient at harnessing energy from water. I used “for every action there is an equal opposite reaction” as a guide and angles of deflection to get the maximum energy and efficiency. I could only achieve 78% efficiency of actually harnessing energy due to having to have some space for water to go to after using the energy. I resubmitted this and went past the engineers, CEO and right to the board. Although they were impressed with the technology, they are not in the manufacturing but would be interested when the technology is manufactured.
I was also the smuck who submitted it to a German manufacturer who is the world supplier. The company stated that although the technology was extremely interesting, the company is content with the current customer base.
This was 4 years ago and I still bug the Canadian and American government periodically.
Learning from this turbine allowed me to understand rotation and how density of any mass when moving compresses and holds energy.
Here is why the current turbines are terrible at picking up energy. As they rotate, the mass or center of balance moves on a molecular level.
Take a wheel with spokes. On these spokes add a light spring on the spoke. Next add a weight on the side toward the center. When the wheel rotates, the spring compresses with the weight moving it forward. The faster it moves, the more compression and stored energy. When the wheel is allowed to relase on it’s own, the store energy keeps the wheel moving untill all the energy is used up.
Why is it not patented? I did a patent check to see if anything was like this and there is not. I was also advised not to for two reasons. One China does not abide by patent laws and two India has been known to put blanket patents around a product in case of any new products or modifications.
Now add this to our understanding of what the theories say how our planet slows and what had energized it. Also works on the sun too.
So now every physicist and scientist try to ingnore what I have, which is a big piece of science is incorrect.

Andrew F (19:08:45) :
Interesting thread. I’m learning lots of useful info. Thanks to Troels, Henry and other experts for their comments.
OK
We are a long ways from break even. I can offer the numbers of cubic yards to create the base of the turbine for concrete. The steel reinforcement and weight are going very high since the towers are getting taller and heavier.
Building a ROAD to each tower and preparing a surface to raise the million pound crane is a of of dirt work. More earthmoving equipment.
http://blog.climateandenergy.org/2010/03/15/newton-ks-wind-turbine-base-manufacturing-possibility-of-400-jobs-by-2014/
He said the Atlas CTB uses only 250 cubic yards of concrete, compared with standard tower bases that use more than 500 cubic yards of concrete, but Tindall’s design is even stronger.
Palumbo said the Atlas CTB starts at about $200,000, but customers can recoup their investment over a relatively short period of time from increased profits. And by building up instead of out, they can reduce the amount of land needed for wind farms.
Lot of money, steel and concrete on the ground. That means 100 truck loads of cement. Lot of diesel fuel to drive 40 miles into the country.

Joe (19:17:43) :
I do also have to ask if youve built one? It seems to me youve got your design running backwards… as you take energy from the flow of water it slows… but the area increases if you going outwards with the turbine, and the slower flow will work against the quicker speeds of the outter edges of the blades slowing it, causing drag… maybe im imaging it wrong from your description… but it seems to me you are describing a compressor/pump more than and expander.

FYI, Denmark import-export in realtime:
http://www.energinet.dk/Integrationer/ElOest/ElsystemetLigeNu/energinet1.swf

Re: Joe (19:17:43)

Take a wheel with spokes. On these spokes add a light spring on the spoke. Next add a weight on the side toward the center. When the wheel rotates, the spring compresses with the weight moving it forward. The faster it moves, the more compression and stored energy. When the wheel is allowed to relase on it’s own, the store energy keeps the wheel moving untill all the energy is used up.

Sounds like a speed control mechanism as applied to a flywheel. Works off the twirling ice skater arms-in arms-out model. On spin-up the arms (weights) are inward, you build up rotational speed. More energy gets stored (increased angular momentum), arms start moving outward, limiting the rise in angular speed. We’ll assume the springs don’t hit maximum compression (end of travel for the weights). On spin-down the arms move inward, allowing the angular speed to be maintained while angular momentum is lost. Finally the arms are completely inward, and the last bit of angular momentum goes away as the wheel slows to a stop.

(…) This technology is actually an inverted turbine so that water is split by a slightly concave cone that has blades that turn energy from a verticle to horizontal plane at an agle of optimization. This center is fixed and does not move but it splits the energy and directs it at all 360 degrees. A turbine with 180 blades on the circumference of the circle picks up all the energy working together for the maximum amount of torque. (…)

Ah, got it, sounds like you’re driving a squirrel cage fan attached to a generator. Normally the fan is driven by a motor, and the air sucked into the center where it is flung outwards by the blades and collected by the housing. For your design the cone diverts the flow coming into the center outward into the blades, generating torque that turns the fan and thus the generator it is attached to.
I have to wonder how you calculated water turbine efficiencies. For example, among impulse turbines the Turgo operates at around 87% efficiency in real world use. For reaction turbines, a common Francis turbine is cited as 90% efficient. With designs such as these, the outflowing water has very little energy left.
So if you’re going from water that is rushing into the turbine, to water that basically has to be pushed away from the turbine, how do you get 18 times more efficiency than that?

JEROME
Sorry, I don’t wish to seem argumentative. But you say….’on the fens, where there is a lot more wind’
Can you support that statement please? Operational figures for local Wind Farms on the Fens suggest they are operating between 24 and 26% Annually. I believe national average load figures for Britain are in the region of 29.4%? The last monthly figures for an operating Wind Farm Sept 2008 were 16.6%. My own daily records, taken from BBC windfeeds over 18 months locally suggest the wind speeds regularly are very low. And observations of operating Wind Farms daily, reveal them standing idle, very often. (Yesterday for instance.) What we do have though, on the fens, is wind sheer. Which, I understand leads to increased noise. Perhaps explaining some high profile noise complaints from local residents who’s houses are too close. Leading to concerns from many local residents who now find themselves threatened by new developments, equally close, but with larger machines. A proliferation problem (unregulated as to proximaty distances) that BWEA are eager to encourage. But for residents to complain, or object is to invite unfortunate, and less than polite comments. (Sometimes from people who are driving this process, and profiting from it.)

Mike Ewing (20:21:55)
There is no proto-type. What I did do was create angles of deflection(simular to pool angles to pockets). Pressure flow of water is straight.
The center blades being fixed, split the flow and curves from horizontal to verticle (simular to the a wringer washer) but angles slightly more. Interestingly enough, at some point, the more you angle, the less effective as now all you are doing is a dog chasing it’s tail. Lining up the angles from a smaller circle(center) to the outer drum type turbine to pick up the energy has to be very close. As you leave more space, the energy lining up with the blades become more disperse and loose the maximum thrust to the blades. The drum type turbine blades have to also be in line with each other as you try to adjust these then, then problem with outer stress and friction would come into effect. So, what I did was concave the blades so that I did not have to cause any outer stress by adjusting the angle of the blades. This then could recieve maximum flow to torque and not drag any parts.
kadaka (01:38:56)
Power genertion and turbines have made 3 major errors.
One. Most turbines use the radius of a circle and some use the diameter of a circle. This is fine when there is no motion involved but, as soon as they start to move, the dynamics are completely different. When rotation is invoved, it becomes a circle within a circle within a circle. Each point of the blade aroung going to the center have a different circumference.
Two. All turbines have energy going in from the outside circumference. The deflection of the energy interferes with any energy actually hitting the blades.(See angles of deflection).
Three. The molecular mass of the blades changes as well and becomes heavier to the outer edges with speed.( ie. spoked wheel display)
Angles of deflection is when the turbine blade is 45 degrees, the angle energy deflects is 90 degrees. When you move the blade, the angles change but the fixed flow does not. The closer energy flow actually interferes with the next and the next. If you draw this on paper, it shows very clearly when you use many lines.
The efficency rating I use is the direct flow to the angle of energy pushing at 90 degrees. So, 90 degrees of direct flow would be 100% effecient. I could only get 78% of actual energy efficiency.
The turbine companies use whatever energy does not touch the blade is that efficient. So, a 8% space around the wheel must be 92% efficient.
Now you can see why the wind turbines are garbage when you add in the angles of deflection along with idle turbine times, etc.

If the UK government spent the £100billion it currently wants to spend on wind on making the public transport system fast, efficient, cheap and a pleasure to use I am pretty sure they would reduce a lot more c02 than the 100billion on wind turbines and have something to show for it. Instead they put the £100billion on the table for windfarms without discussion and then try and sell a high speed rail link at £4billion. It seems the weightlifter’s mantra is the mantra of the day. If there’s no pain there’s no gain. It is impossible to quantify how much c02 anything saves because as soon as you try you have to make so many assumptions, and value judgements. If energy was lost is the gas backup or the windmill responsible? How much co2 does a tonne of uranium take to mine? Do I use the value of energy now, or do I accept that if I use more uranium today, tomorrow I will have to use lower quality ore which will take more energy, so the c02 footprint of todays mining should take into account tomorrow. Power distribution losses depends on how far from the source the customers are, and their usage patterns. Every component depends on the area where it was manufactured, how you calculate everything. 2 experts can take slightly different assumptions and get wildly different answers, and then argue about it until the end of time.

Troels
“Steel in itself is a material and does not have a carbon footprint”
Troels, that is both a false and unsupported assertion. 250 tons of steel in the tower. 50 tons in the nacelle. How many tons in the reinforsed base/platform?
Shipping of Iron ore, steel and fabricated parts takes a tremendous amount of truck ton miles. Chemistry class tells us Fe in the form of iron ore is many steps away from steel. I also understand that dehydration of gypsum to make Portland cement is done by natural gas furnaces. 500 to 1,000 cubic meters of cement and aggregate in the base. Offshore sites even more.
I am sure you are uncomfortible posting with people that see the massive flaws in the wind turbine proponent claims.
I spend several hundred dollars an hour including set up time and treavel time to call out a mere 60 ton crane to lift my sailboat and put it in the water. It takes the capacity because of the reach. It is used to raise the mast also.
Tell us what the costs are of 20 semi trucks transporting a 1,000,000 pound crane and assembling it to raise a tower.
You may also not admit that many time, maintenance calls for a crane to remove a blde, nacelle or major component for repair and replacement. This of course is not only unscgheduled, but good math says we must include the opportunity cost of ungenerated and unsold electricity for the several weeks down time.
In a coal fired plant or hydro plant, they build overhead trackways and install moveable cranes. Under a roof, they are not delayed by weather.
Towers are off limits to crane services under many weather conditions.

Wind energy ghosts
Shutdowns
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html
Condor cuisinarts:
Altamont’s turbines have since 2008 been tethered four months of every year in an effort to protect migrating birds after environmentalists filed suit.
4 months shutdown I don’t want to wait for 4 months to power up and do laundry. Would you settle for a Toyota in the shop 4 months of the year? Plus court costs?
I am sure a rational mind would hessitate to deactivate a coal driven generator when all the facts come out.

Joe (05:05:10) :

kadaka (01:38:56)
Have you ever seen the out flow at a dam?
Massive amount of energy still flowing out.

No, it is not massive. You cannot get 100% efficiency with a water turbine, because the water has to leave the turbine. If you extracted 100% of all potential mechanical energy then the water would just lay there. But there is new water going into the turbine, the old needs to get out of the way.
You can design a turbine that is so efficient that at some point as the water flows through it you can say 100% of the potential mechanical energy is extracted, and that would be true if at that point the water magically disappeared. But in reality it is still there and needs to be removed from the turbine, which takes energy, thus you do not hit that 100% mark. To get the most efficiency that point has to be in the turbine, otherwise potentially extractable energy is being allowed to escape. But once it is in, as you move it closer to the inlet you’re just adding unnecessary surface area thus increasing losses.
With reaction turbine designs the unit is submerged, you do not want air bubbles impeding the water flow. So the old water gets pushed out, with the whole exit path often utilizing the principle of a common plumbing trap to keep the air out (example). With impulse turbine designs the unit does not require submersion, gravity alone can carry away the water provided the outlet is open enough there is no backpressure, however for that to be effective the turbine outlet needs to be higher than the level of where the water is being outputted, which represents a loss of potential energy.
Of course, your arguments really fall apart with simple economics. A hydroelectric installation can be a huge investment. The investors would like to see that investment paid back quickly so they can rake in the profits. Thus they will go for the most cost-effective design, barring any other engineering concerns like environmental regulations. I’m seeing modern turbine designs with mechanical efficiencies cited around 90%, which are sturdy and require little maintenance. As stated in Joe (04:57:39), your design is calculated at 78% efficiency without a prototype for real-world measurements, and in Joe (19:17:43) you said it used 180 blades at the circumference. If I was an investor, I’d want to hear a lot more as to how your design is so much more superior, and something other than previous designs being somehow so completely wrong that I’d be foolish to invest in proven profitable designs over your own.