New Hope For Wind Energy.... BladelessTurbines

[BullKurtz]

From France....they're quiet and they don't kill eagles and hawks.

Instead of using the wind to rotate a blade, the company's pillars shake back and forth from the vortices created by the movement of air around the structure. Engineers look to avoid these forces when designing buildings and other structures, but the Vortex turbine takes advantage of this phenomenon to oscillate in the wind. Typically, a structure can only be optimized to oscillate at the specific frequencies caused by a certain wind speed, but Vortex says it is using magnets to adjust the turbine on the fly to get the most from whatever the wind speeds happen to be. Once the structure starts vibrating, an alternator in the base of the device then converts the mechanical movement into electricity.

But why bother switching from traditional wind turbines in the first place? Well, Vortex claims that energy produced by its turbines will cost around 40 percent less than energy made from wind turbines that are operating today. A large part of that cost reduction comes from maintenance — since the Vortex doesn't have moving parts or gears, it should last longer and it won't require periodic lubrication. The simpler design also means that manufacturing costs are about half that of a traditional wind turbine (those massive blades are expensive). That said, Vortex tells Wired that its bladeless design captures around 30 percent less energy than a regular turbine. The company does note, however, that it's possible to fit more of the Vortex models in the same area. And, as a bonus, the bladeless turbines are silent.

These bladeless wind turbines shake to generate electricity The Verge

 

[there4eyeM]

I hadn't seen this; will definitely look for more info.

Thanks (I'm in France).

 

[pwjohn]

Shake, rattle & roll

 

[Silhouette]

OK, I'm never going to get around to this in my lifetime. Poverty forces the mundane tasks to overwhelm any ingenuity. So here, world, take this design and run with it. This is the future of both heat recovery/energy generation in hot areas (potentially used to cool the homes they are venting heat out of at the same time) and wind energy. The horizontal energy-catch turbine spinners are the most efficient IMHO. Even tiny gusts of wind sent these things spinning because of the large surface area/continual catch design and little resistance. Add super-performing bearings, clutching systems and off you go.

Engineers, get busy. And if you feel guilty later on, send me some cash, OK? I'm off to scare up my next loaf of bread..

 

[there4eyeM]

They seem good, but tests prove they are not the most efficient. That's why the big whirly-gigs have blades.

 

[Silhouette]

They seem good, but tests prove they are not the most efficient. That's why the big whirly-gigs have blades.

They would become more efficient with clutching. Hence the reason I mentioned it. The surface area and ease of spinning are their best features. Expounding on the design would net good results. Look at all the surface area to contact with any wind in any direction instantly. Even as the wind wildly shifts direction, this design picks up all of that energy instantly without having to readjust for best position.

 

[pwjohn]

They would have capitalized on that long ago had there been anything there worth going after.

 

[Silhouette]

They would have capitalized on that long ago had there been anything there worth going after.

Time to revisit an old idea. It happens all the time. Seems like something about it bothers you. Otherwise you'd appear more open minded about it. I always know how to spot energy-monopoly industry people in threads like this.

 

[pwjohn]

They would have capitalized on that long ago had there been anything there worth going after.

Time to revisit an old idea. It happens all the time. Seems like something about it bothers you. Otherwise you'd appear more open minded about it. I always know how to spot energy-monopoly industry people in threads like this.

Why do you insist on making this conversation about me ? You shouldn't be so quick to get all bent out of shape because you look bad doing it. Get over it.

 

[dannyboys]

My great grandfather built a homemade pulley system which ran off the wind driven water pump which ran a generator which charged single cell batteries which lighted his house and milking parlour. He had lights/power to operate the dry cell radio in the middle of nowhere years before the power lines were run down the rural farm roads. He made money by making the system for his neighbors.

 

[pwjohn]

There's nothing new about efficiency. We're a let better at it than most people realize.

 

[BullKurtz]

There was a windmill on our family farm....pumped water from the well. Also had the old pump (vandals never stole the handle) on a rickety wood platform. Gramma always told me when I weighed over a hundred pounds not to step on those boards.

 

[Silhouette]

There's nothing new about efficiency. We're a let better at it than most people realize.

That isn't true at all. In fact, car manufacturers have been duped (or agreed to insidiously in a gentleman'$ agreement) for years to burn unburned gas vapors in the tailpipe (catalytic converter) instead of catalyzing in the power stroke where it would move the car forward. They took advantage of greenhorn tree huggers, assuring them they'd clean up the emissions; which they did. But not without a price. That price was a reduction in fuel economy by introducing particulate platinum in the useless tailpipe instead of where combustion and power happens.

That is but one example of purposeful mis-engineering for profit in order to make things less efficient. Saddle down a car with more pulleys, vapor AFTER burners, smog pumps and so on makes a car burn much much more fuel than a non-saddled car. And BigOil knew this. BigOil was/is so deep in bed in Detroit that they might as well rename GM "the Chevron car manufacturers".

Likewise, the solar thermal arrays with thousands of flat mirrors located far far away from a central tower raised way up high were also engineered to fail. I believe Chevron's money was behind that joke on society as well in a project launched in California. They saw solar thermal. They knew what it could do. So what did they do? Build up a mockery of it to show "how it just won't work, so we need to go back to carbon energy". Meanwhile real solar thermal with concave concentrating mirrors very close to a linear fluid-tube array gets heat exchangers dealing with 300 degrees Celsius in a jiffy. And these can be quickly set up anywhere.

Oh, we could use a LOT more efficiency. Recovering heat loss and picking up very small winds can be done with these turbines designs, clutching and the proper bearings. It's just that for every ounce of carbon fuel we don't burn, certain people lose money. There is a lot invested in making things inefficient on purpose...

Everyone knows this. This game has been going on so long that the shroud is completely gone. All anyone has to do is look at countries where through absolute necessity, poverty and lack of access to carbon they have had to innovate light years ahead of the US. Efficient diesel cars (still carbon but allowing it to be produced biologically, not mined) are but one example in Europe. The ME is building solar thermal to run their countries off of while keeping the West back in the dark ages, hooked on the heroin fix of carbon-profiteers.

 

[pwjohn]

There's nothing new about efficiency. We're a let better at it than most people realize.

That isn't true at all. In fact, car manufacturers have been duped (or agreed to insidiously in a gentleman'$ agreement) for years to burn unburned gas vapors in the tailpipe (catalytic converter) instead of catalyzing in the power stroke where it would move the car forward. They took advantage of greenhorn tree huggers, assuring them they'd clean up the emissions; which they did. But not without a price. That price was a reduction in fuel economy by introducing particulate platinum in the useless tailpipe instead of where combustion and power happens.

That is but one example of purposeful mis-engineering for profit in order to make things less efficient. Saddle down a car with more pulleys, vapor AFTER burners, smog pumps and so on makes a car burn much much more fuel than a non-saddled car. And BigOil knew this. BigOil was/is so deep in bed in Detroit that they might as well rename GM "the Chevron car manufacturers".

Likewise, the solar thermal arrays with thousands of flat mirrors located far far away from a central tower raised way up high were also engineered to fail. I believe Chevron's money was behind that joke on society as well in a project launched in California. They saw solar thermal. They knew what it could do. So what did they do? Build up a mockery of it to show "how it just won't work, so we need to go back to carbon energy". Meanwhile real solar thermal with concave concentrating mirrors very close to a linear fluid-tube array gets heat exchangers dealing with 300 degrees Celsius in a jiffy. And these can be quickly set up anywhere.

Oh, we could use a LOT more efficiency. Recovering heat loss and picking up very small winds can be done with these turbines designs, clutching and the proper bearings. It's just that for every ounce of carbon fuel we don't burn, certain people lose money. There is a lot invested in making things inefficient on purpose...

Everyone knows this. This game has been going on so long that the shroud is completely gone. All anyone has to do is look at countries where through absolute necessity, poverty and lack of access to carbon they have had to innovate light years ahead of the US. Efficient diesel cars (still carbon but allowing it to be produced biologically, not mined) are but one example in Europe. The ME is building solar thermal to run their countries off of while keeping the West back in the dark ages, hooked on the heroin fix of carbon-profiteers.

Well gee thanks for starting out by calling me a liar. I merely stated that there was nothing new about efficiency. And that's the truth. There ain't no spinning that much as you'd like too.

But as for your rant on late 1960's engine technology versus cleaning up the exhaust, all those things you mentioned were made necessary due to the limitations of fuel delivery and engine control technology back in those days. And the same was true for the on highway Diesel engine market back in those days as well. But Detroit got there act together by applying electronic engine controls when the technology became available allowing for more horsepower, reduced emissions and better gas mileage. So like everything else, there's a process involved. You can't just turn everything on a dime much as you'd like too.

A lot of people, yourself included apparently are of the mistaken belief that we can ditch big oil in a heartbeat but it's just not possible at this stage of our evolution.
Big oil is so tightly weaved within the fabric of our daily life it's gonna be a long time before we leave it behind.

Look at coal as an example of that very phenomenon. We've posses the technology to leave coal behind for decades now but there it is, still in widespread use because some people don't like nuclear power. Go figure.

 

[Silhouette]

1. But as for your rant on late 1960's engine technology versus cleaning up the exhaust, all those things you mentioned were made necessary due to the limitations of fuel delivery and engine control technology back in those days. And the same was true for the on highway Diesel engine market back in those days as well. But Detroit got there act together by applying electronic engine controls when the technology became available allowing for more horsepower, reduced emissions and better gas mileage. So like everything else, there's a process involved. You can't just turn everything on a dime much as you'd like too.....2. A lot of people, yourself included apparently are of the mistaken belief that we can ditch big oil in a heartbeat but it's just not possible at this stage of our evolution....3. Big oil is so tightly weaved within the fabric of our daily life it's gonna be a long time before we leave it behind....4. Look at coal as an example of that very phenomenon. We've posses the technology to leave coal behind for decades now but there it is, still in widespread use because some people don't like nuclear power. Go figure.

1. Detroit knew about how particulate platinum burns excess fuel. You're trying to tell me that they didn't know that could improve efficiency in the power stroke instead of being a useless process (outside cleaner air) in the tail pipe? That's a flat-out lie. Add to that the concerted efforts to suppress platinum pre-burning products produced as far back as the 1970s and yes, you have a bald faced lie. Sorry if the truth hurts. Europe was doing efficient diesel back then too while the US fiercely resisted producing cars of the same caliber. The technology was there, the politics stood in its way.

2. I didn't say carbon doesn't have a place. Diesel cars and trucks will mandate a need and use for them into the future. Plastics and such come from oil too, so there's that.

3. See #2.

4. Yes, some people do object to nuclear. That would be the nation of Russia around the 10,000 square mile exclusion/limitation zone around Chernobyl and the entire nation of Japan. Carbon can have a place to augment solar thermal power generation in hybrid plants around the world. In completely sad and tragic irony, Japan sits on the 1/3 largest geothermal power reserve in the world; while GE talked their People in power into producing power with nuclear plants because they said if Japan developed their geothermal power it would hurt the pristine setting of their natural parks and such. Except that geothermal plants can be prudently nestled into the scenery as to not detract from multiple use there. Also, Japan for some bizarre reason did develop some geothermal energy, to sell to other countries so they could in part offset the astronomical expenses of building and maintaining their nuclear power program. How's that for bitter irony and politics? But nuclear allows a very keen monopoly because not everyone can set up a plant in their back yard or public park, so the competition is reduced. Nuclear plants have panned out to be a net loss financially and always wind up being wards of the taxpayers...for up to 200,000 years if you include the costs of waste and storage/disposal issues...assuming a civilization will last that long to babysit the most toxic substance known to mankind as it fizzles out excruciatingly slowly..

It's just that the solutions don't keep us consuming near as much oil & uranium power as BigOil/BigNuke profiteers would like, so hence all the "this stuff is impossible!" propaganada. In fairness, you may not be lying. You may just be undereducated about the nuances of energy politics.

 

[pwjohn]

1. But as for your rant on late 1960's engine technology versus cleaning up the exhaust, all those things you mentioned were made necessary due to the limitations of fuel delivery and engine control technology back in those days. And the same was true for the on highway Diesel engine market back in those days as well. But Detroit got there act together by applying electronic engine controls when the technology became available allowing for more horsepower, reduced emissions and better gas mileage. So like everything else, there's a process involved. You can't just turn everything on a dime much as you'd like too.....2. A lot of people, yourself included apparently are of the mistaken belief that we can ditch big oil in a heartbeat but it's just not possible at this stage of our evolution....3. Big oil is so tightly weaved within the fabric of our daily life it's gonna be a long time before we leave it behind....4. Look at coal as an example of that very phenomenon. We've posses the technology to leave coal behind for decades now but there it is, still in widespread use because some people don't like nuclear power. Go figure.

1. Detroit knew about how particulate platinum burns excess fuel. You're trying to tell me that they didn't know that could improve efficiency in the power stroke instead of being a useless process (outside cleaner air) in the tail pipe? That's a flat-out lie. Add to that the concerted efforts to suppress platinum pre-burning products produced as far back as the 1970s and yes, you have a bald faced lie. Sorry if the truth hurts. Europe was doing efficient diesel back then too while the US fiercely resisted producing cars of the same caliber. The technology was there, the politics stood in its way.

2. I didn't say carbon doesn't have a place. Diesel cars and trucks will mandate a need and use for them into the future. Plastics and such come from oil too, so there's that.

3. See #2.

4. Yes, some people do object to nuclear. That would be the nation of Russia around the 10,000 square mile exclusion/limitation zone around Chernobyl and the entire nation of Japan. Carbon can have a place to augment solar thermal power generation in hybrid plants around the world. In completely sad and tragic irony, Japan sits on the 1/3 largest geothermal power reserve in the world; while GE talked their People in power into producing power with nuclear plants because they said if Japan developed their geothermal power it would hurt the pristine setting of their natural parks and such. Except that geothermal plants can be prudently nestled into the scenery as to not detract from multiple use there. Also, Japan for some bizarre reason did develop some geothermal energy, to sell to other countries so they could in part offset the astronomical expenses of building and maintaining their nuclear power program. How's that for bitter irony and politics? But nuclear allows a very keen monopoly because not everyone can set up a plant in their back yard or public park, so the competition is reduced. Nuclear plants have panned out to be a net loss financially and always wind up being wards of the taxpayers...for up to 200,000 years if you include the costs of waste and storage/disposal issues...assuming a civilization will last that long to babysit the most toxic substance known to mankind as it fizzles out excruciatingly slowly..

It's just that the solutions don't keep us consuming near as much oil & uranium power as BigOil/BigNuke profiteers would like, so hence all the "this stuff is impossible!" propaganada. In fairness, you may not be lying. You may just be undereducated about the nuances of energy politics.

Chill out dude. There's no need for you to shit all over yourself. lol

That's twice now you've called me a liar. I don't have to put up with that crap.

I have no idea what you're talking about and have no interest in watching you shit yourself over and over while trying to make some obscure point. So get over it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Those tubes swaying back and forth could strike a bird and knock it out.

 

[Silhouette]

Those tubes swaying back and forth could strike a bird and knock it out.

Oil spills have taken out more birds, shore and sea life than three planets all covered with wind generators could ever hope to do. Next excuse?

This bird would have been far better off just dying instantly instead of a slow death by poisoning and starvation because it couldn't fly in order to feed itself.