(may be broke/outdated!)
www.devicedaily.com Jet engine inspired FloDesign boosts wind turbine output Green Tech CNET News I got this off of cnet.com. Thanks from Martin LaMonica from cnet news. Here is the article: news.cnet.com I have never liked wind turbines, because they are noisy, ugly, and it takes 10000 of them to equal the power of a medium sized coal plant. This new design is a major improvement in my opinion.
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Unspillable.com is your gateway into to the intriguing world of energy mysteries, revolutionary fuels, and the science driving alternative energy solutions. Delve into the depths of covert agendas and unexplained phenomena surrounding energy sources while uncovering the latest advancements in renewable technologies. From debunking conspiracies to exploring the cutting edge of sustainable energy, we’re your go-to resource for unraveling the secrets shaping our energy landscape.
© 2024 All Rights Reserved
25 Responses
E = 0.5 * m * V^2 = 0.5 * r * S * V * V^2 = 0.5 *r * S * V^3, where r is the density of air, S is the turbine sectional area, i.e., the size of the turbine against the wind, V is the speed of V.
This is a simple math and physice. You need large area of wind energy harvesting to do the work. This design will not have much chance of building a large area for obvious reason.
Funny though they seems to have received $8.3 million from ARPA-E.
Really Impressive!!!! This concept is real now. Just look for Wind Tamer model.
But your modifications is really amazing.
PS.: DOnt feed the trolls!!! Dont answer stuped people. Thumbs up for this!!!!!
Wow!
Why not make your fraud seem to make sense at least. Most frauds work best if they are closer to something that’s possible.
If you were magic enough to cheat physics, you could magic up a better fraud.
Has anyone fallen for it yet? Try claiming you get 0.3% better than everyone else but don’t claim such stupid figures if you want anyone to fall for your scam.
Anyone who might fall for this lost all their money ages ago.
Your scam is stupid.
Cool video though. You could get real work
@sjh7132 Normal turbines extract 50%, this turbine extracts
3 to 4 times as much. Give us a break!
FloDesign said it closed a $34.5 million Series B funding round in December. The backers include California-based Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers—the firm that supplied most of FloDesign’s Series A round—as well as three new investors, Goldman Sachs, Technology Partners, and VantagePoint Venture Partners. The latest round brings FloDesign’s total funding to about $40 million, not counting an $8.3 million Department of Energy grant awarded to the company last fall.
FloDesign said it closed a $34.5 million Series B funding round in December. The backers include California-based Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers—the firm that supplied most of FloDesign’s Series A round—as well as three new investors, Goldman Sachs, Technology Partners, and VantagePoint Venture Partners. The latest round brings FloDesign’s total funding to about $40 million, not counting an $8.3 million Department of Energy grant awarded to the company last fall.
@bornlikethis38
Using your search terms I can only find lots of propaganda, and no technical papers with any meat to them. Please PM me a link to the write up you were thinking about.
@bornlikethis38
I’ll look at it. This video is a year old. Surely they have a model in a wind tunnel that can demonstrate they can break Betz by now. Please forward me to that data also.
@sjh7132 I’ll let you pick the Flodesigns mathematics by directing you to a pdf written by M. J. Werle, who works at Flodesign Inc.
google “flodesign wind turbine betz” and click the pdf.
@MegaWind2010
By the way Betz came up with this theory in 1919. Why do you call it a 1950’s theory?
@MegaWind2010 Betz law is based on nothing more than the fact that if you take too much energy out of the air, you can’t get the air out of the way quickly enough to get new air in. No turbine shape is going to get you around that problem and the derivation assumes no specific shape or type of turbine. Research it, then tell me that I don’t know it. Do you ignore gravity because that law came about long ago?
Companies who claim to break Betz shouldn’t be trusted.
@sjh7132 With all due respect I dont think you know what you are talking about. you have read about Betz without knowing what it means and what it limitations are. I am glad a 1950’s theory has still kept your imagination in 1950s.
The Oil companies are trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating your own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
you must be smarter than the people who spend 40 mil
@Struckgold – Never…its all hype, when a real one not a model is built then we’ll see…
I love this. I would love to learn how to make and install these turbines.
@bornlikethis38
That is misleading information from the company. When figuring the area of a turbine you should also include the shroud, in that case they won’t break Betz. It’s pretty much the same as having larger blades. But if their cost is lower per watt produced that’s really all that matters. It would be interesting to see if it’s true.
@sjh7132 “According to the company, this wind turbine will generate power at half the cost of conventional wind turbines thanks to its jet engine technology that overcomes the Betz limit for turbines. Regular wind turbines can capture 59.3 percent from wind’s energy, and this percentage was called the Betz limit. The problem is that almost half of the wind which approaches a turbine is deflected around the blades, not through them which means that almost half of the potential energy is lost.”
@arkivx1 “According to the company, this wind turbine will generate power at half the cost of conventional wind turbines thanks to its jet engine technology that overcomes the Betz limit for turbines. Regular wind turbines can capture 59.3 percent from wind’s energy, and this percentage was called the Betz limit. The problem is that almost half of the wind which approaches a turbine is deflected around the blades, not through them which means that almost half of the potential energy is lost.”
Faster spin = faster bearing wear
@bornlikethis38
Betz limit is 59% so that’s the best they can do. I don’t believe that any large commercial turbine is less efficient than 15%. (probably more like 40%). Therefore I don’t buy the 4x efficiency number.
@arkivx1 WindTamer does supply data. Using their data and the duct diameter (16 feet) rather than the rotor diameter (8 feet), I compute the efficiency at about 18%. This is typical for wind turbines of that size. If you compute using the rotor diameter, the pseudo-efficiency is 70%. But this is misleading. No one doubts that a duct works. The question is, is it better to purchase a huge duct or standard turbine if the efficiencies are similar.
@arkivx1 OK here is the WindTamer quote “even exceeding the theoretical limit of efficiency of extracting power from the wind, the so called Betz limit of 59.3%, based on the swept area of the rotor.” The last part is the key “Swept area of the rotor”. They are applying the limit incorrectly. They need to apply the area of the duct, not the rotor. The whole argument is a little strange. Does the customer care if they have a 16 foot duct or 16 foot rotor?
@JohnCBriggs According to Betzs law, no turbine can capture more than 59.3 percent of the kinetic energy in wind. In tests, WindTamer a second company claim to have turbines that do better than the 59.3 percent limit.
OMG fucking awesome!