A new kind of wind turbine

RevI

I am an Indian inventor. For a long time, I am continuing personal research about a theoretical machine that can extract atmospheric heat and convert that into useful power. Recently, while searching net, I have found out that the necessary machinery is already available in market. In short, the machine now can be built easily.

At present, I have completed the CAD drawing and done some ANSYS simulation testing. As per the latest simulation where the RPM was set of 3600, the torque was found to be around 1.52 for a machine of 35 cm diameter and the input wind velocity was set to be 6 m/s. For me, this is promising result and I can say that no wind turbine in anywhere around the world of that little diameter can generate such torque at this RPM.

If anybody is interested, I can provide the simulation report.

Capt'n Midnight

The thing with wind, and to a greater extent wave energy, is not % efficiency. It's how to get the most power at low speeds and low costs for equipment that can still stand up to the worst storms, like the way the existing three bladed turbines can change the angle of their blades.

You are claiming 573 Watts. 1.52Nm at 3600 rpm https://eicac.co.uk/power-rpm-and-torque-calculator/

Above a Tour De France cyclist during a time trial. Compare to the 250w limit on ebikes.

The maximum theoretical power that can be extracted from 6m/s wind flowing through a diameter of 0.35m is just over 7 watts. Roughly one bicycle dynamo. https://www.fxsolver.com/browse/formulas/Wind+Power+-+Betz%27s+law

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121426485#Comment_121426485

I can show you the report. And there are plenty of real examples that crossed this so-called "theoretical limit". If you wish, you can it into ANSYS (or any other CFD simulation softwire) by yourself. It has been tested by ANSYS with 900, 1800 RPM and all have shown almost similar results.

Mellor

If you are setting the RPM at 3600, then the wind speed is redundant as it doesn't create he turbine speed.

That would explain why it's nonsense. A 3600RPM fan may well generate 500 watts. But wind speed of 6m/s is unlikely to create those speeds.

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121460285#Comment_121460285

Not clear what you want to mean. Better explain it clearly. And try to write something with sense before telling others "nonsense".

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121460651#Comment_121460651

If you don't understand that there is a relationship between wind speed and turbine speed (and the energy it carries), then I can't help you. But it would explain a lot. A theoretical limit is not even the biggest issue with the claims.

A any amount of wind has a limited amount of energy. You are claiming to produce 45x that amount. It's nonsense.

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121461005#Comment_121461005

It's a concentrated wind turbine and you don't have any idea how a concentrated wind turbine can perform. Better search google and youtube with "concentrated wind turbine" and see in the videos by yourself that how concentrated wind turbines can generate sufficient power even with very low wind speed. If you are really curious, then you should ask me how it has been able to generate 45X more energy. Instead of that, you just started with "nonsense". And, this is not a unique piece to claim that. You just need to be curious and start understanding it before coming to any decision. But, you have started commenting with a decision in your mind. That's the problem.

Long ago, there were people who are shouting "nonsense" to the idea of a machine "heavier than air". You better go through history of science and invention before making remarks.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121462484#Comment_121462484

As you are the one making the extraordinary claims you are the one required to provide extraordinary evidence.

Please see calculations in my previous post.

If by "concentrated" you mean there's a larger capture area directed to a smaller turbine then you should only be making claims against the total area. Ducts also tend to be more expensive than just using longer blades which is why they aren't used on large scales. The most efficient solar panels use lots of mirrors.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121462484#Comment_121462484

It does matter what type it is or how it performs. I wasn't referring to it's performance. My estimate is true even if if it is 100% efficient.

If you are really curious, then you should ask me how it has been able to generate 45X more energy. Instead of that, you just started with "nonsense". And, this is not a unique piece to claim that. You just need to be curious and start understanding it before coming to any decision. But, you have started commenting with a decision in your mind. That's the problem.

But it is not able to generate 45x energy than exists in wind, it has not happened. I haven't come in with a decision. I've come in with the laws of physics in mind.

There is no point being curious about this claim as it violates a basic law of physics. Energy cannot be created. If the wind has 100 watts of power, then that is all it can provide, claiming to provide 4,500watts from that is obviously nonsense. If you think there are multiple turbines making this claim, then that is further example that you don't understand what you are reading.

There are only two possibilities here. a) The claims are simply made, or b) You have misrepresented a critical detail such as size, area, wind speed, torque etc

Long ago, there were people who are shouting "nonsense" to the idea of a machine "heavier than air". You better go through history of science and invention before making remarks.

When was a the idea of a machine "heavier than air" considered nonsense. That makes no sense.

If you mean lighter than air. Then that's not true either. A hot air balloon floats because it is physically lighter than air (less dense).nobody ever claimed that wasn't possible. No different to a boat floating on water. Planes are not actually lighter than air. So they are not breaking any laws of physics either.

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464713#Comment_121464713

What you are mentioning is called "venturi effect". And, sorry to say, you don't have any idea about the science behind the venturi effect. I don't need to know the "math" as I already know it well. And, evidences are all around you. Just go to youtube and search with "concentrated wind turbine" and can see many examples. And none of the videos are made by me. All are making "extraordinary claims" and proving that. And I don't need to prove it to anyone unless he/she has the authority to ask me for proof. I don't think you have the authority. Better search youtube and if you don't have time for that, then stop commenting. And, just for your information, many concentrated wind turbines around the world are regularly violating "Betz limit" without violating it.

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464877#Comment_121464877

There are laws of physics that is beyond your knowledge, but they exist. And, there are proofs around us. You just need to know about that. But, problem with you is, instead of listening and learning, you are arguing with your little knowledge. And, you haven't noticed that what I am claiming is found by ANSYS simulation. I can submit the ANSYS simulation compilation report. ANSYS has been considered dependable by all simulation experts around the world. If you are arguing that ANSYS simulation results are wrong, it's upto you to prove that.

And, just like planes can fly even being "heavier than air", my machine too can generate 45X more energy without breaking Betz limit. How? That's the real point but I don't want to discuss it here.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465012#Comment_121465012

Newtonian laws are not complicated. It’s not my fault you don’t understand.

 If you are arguing that ANSYS simulation results are wrong, it's upto you to prove that.

I didn’t mention the ANSYS simulation. I said you are wrong not the simulation.

You’ve either misunderstood the data, or misrepresented it. I can’t say which as you’ve been unable to show the results. If they even exist.

And, just like planes can fly even being "heavier than air",

Being heavier than air is not a physical obstacle to flight. A bird is heavier than air. The fact I had to point that out shows the lack of thought in your posts.

my machine too can generate 45X more energy without breaking Betz limit. How? 

I didn’t mention Betz limit. If you haven’t understood what I’ve said, you won’t be able to convince anyone that you’ve invented anything.

Let me guess, you need investors to build your turbine…

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465797#Comment_121465797

Step by step answer:

Which Newtonian law you are mentioning? I don't know any Newtonian law that is applicable here.

Both the RPM and torque has been found by ANSYS simulation. I just put the data. If you wish, I can share you the report.

Actually, before Wright Brothers, there were people like you who howls that objects "heavier than air" can't fly despite seeing the example of birds. There are plenty of examples in history.

If you don't know Betz limit, then better learn it. Not very hard to understand.

Every inventor need an investor to commercialize his/her invention. It seems that you are not an inventor and never tried to invent anything.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466151#Comment_121466151

You don’t know which really obvious Newtonian law describes why energy can’t be created from nothing. You should probably educate yourself before continuing to waste your time.

Both the RPM and torque has been found by ANSYS simulation. I just put the data. If you wish, I can share you the report.

Share if you like. But I don’t need to see it, I already know where you’ve gone wrong. It’s actual comical.

Actually, before Wright Brothers, there were people like you who howls that objects "heavier than air" can't fly despite seeing the example of birds. There are plenty of examples in history.

You literally said it, and I pointed out birds exist. Whoosh

If you don't know Betz limit, then better learn it. Not very hard to understand.

I said I didn’t mention it. Not that I didn’t know it.

I didn’t claim to be an inventor. But you have not invented anything. You think you have discovered free energy, but you have a poor grasp of physics.

Mellor

Breaking news

TheWonderLlama

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465012#Comment_121465012

Like seriously, what is your aim with this? you post up here ludicrous claims about a "new" type of turbine, which already exists, without any evidence of the effectiveness of this wonder machine and then attack people who call you out on it.

What is it you are trying to achieve, exactly? Because its not winning friends and influencing people, that's for sure.

and now you don't want to discuss it any more. Fair enough. Buh-bye.

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466303#Comment_121466303

It's called First Law of thermodynamics and that's not even Newtonian. Better have some knowledge of science and scientists before making comments. First law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with Newton.

I have got the data from simulation. If anything can go "wrong" as per you, then it's the simulation.

Actually, before Wright Brothers, champions of "lighter than air" theory don't want to take birds as an example. Just like you are refusing to accept the simulation results.

And, at the end of the day, you are calling this machine a "free energy" device. That's a compliment. In future, I will certainly try the way you have proposed in your last post.

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466352#Comment_121466352

A gamechanger rarely have friends. And the "claims" that you have mentioned is the result of a simulation. If that's "unsolicited" claims for you, I am helpless.

10-10-20

Steorn was labeled as the brightest startup during the celtic tiger for their game-changer energy device and were financed up to around 8.1 million for further development. You certainly have faith in your design so I can't see any issue with following their path.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466356#Comment_121466356

Newtonian physics, aka classical mechanics describes physics in the real world, as distinct from quantum mechanics. The laws of thermodynamics and an extension of classical mechanics . Again, the fact I had to explain that. lol

You have no simulation that backs up your claims. whatever you read, you misunderstood it.

If Im wrong, would be simple to post your invention to prove me wrong. But you haven’t.

It’s not hard to disprove your claims.

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466464#Comment_121466464

Glad to see that there is someone who isn't blindfolded with his own "scientific knowledge".

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466523#Comment_121466523

I can shown the compiled report. If you still don't want to believe, that's upto you.

TheWonderLlama

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466936#Comment_121466936

You should probably look up what happened to Steorn.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465009#Comment_121465009

"And, just for your information, many concentrated wind turbines around the world are regularly violating "Betz limit" without violating it."

Nope. Not a single one. Unless there's very low pressure directly behind your turbine, like the vacuum of outer space. (in which case sealing the hole in your orbital habitat should be something you should attend to)

You can sorta beat Carnot efficiency by using electric motors but Carnot doesn't apply as they aren't thermodynamic processes.

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468107#Comment_121468107

Not a single one! Then what is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeOrUIFhVR8&t=331s&pp=ygUYcm9iZXJ0IG11cnJheSBzbWl0aCBiZXR6

this?

There are many other available on net. And I have repeatedly saying to search youtube with "concentrated wind turbine" and see the videos. Instead of that, you are arguing. In future, kindly do some research on "concentrated wind turbine" and then come here to discuss.

RevI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121467770#Comment_121467770

Such fate occurred to Invelox turbine too despite showing its effectiveness. But, now the basic principle is back in real production in the name of "Darwin wind turbine". Such incidents doesn't prove anything.

RevI

Suddenly all become silent after posting the video of Betz beater. Hope there is none to deny what I have said about my work.