Comments on: Man-Made Wind For The Wind Turbines Of The Future

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:30:00 +0000

So far, these simply haven’t been cost-competitive compared to conventional wind turbines or solar panels. Personally, I wouldn’t bet they ever will. The good wind is up high (where big wind turbines go), and solar is likely to be the dominant source of power in the future — more potential there.

By: Dileepa Dharmasiri

Dileepa Dharmasiri — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 05:58:00 +0000

what if we could make more small wind turbines , spreading all over the world !

http://verticalwindturbines.blogspot.com/2012/07/introduction.html

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:57:00 +0000

nope, baseload power sources that take forever to start up and shut down (and are quite expensive) are a thing of the past, going out of style fast. there’s a reason (or several) why solar, wind, and natural gas dominate new power installations all around the world: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/03/baseload-power-gets-in-the-way/

By: bkhebert

bkhebert — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:10:00 +0000

This is like de jeu vous for me, because in 1980 I wrote a technical paper on something very similar involving solar energy. The more underground for this endeavor will prove the most successful. I also have Ideas that can enhance the wind generation process to its maximum…

By: Michael Hertel

Michael Hertel — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 07:06:00 +0000

one problem is that humid air is less dense than dry air at the same temperature.

By: VietnamRyan

VietnamRyan — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 04:04:00 +0000

I like it and have a few ideas to improve it

By: Duane Tilden

Duane Tilden — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:40:00 +0000

The need for a large source of water would render this idea virtually impractical as it places additional demand on existing water sources.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:17:00 +0000

Wrong. Power generation is all about supply people electricity when they want it, for the best possible price, and with the least amount of risk.

Nuclear is too expensive and brings an unnecessary amount of risk.

By: Sacha B. Nice

Sacha B. Nice — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:06:00 +0000

power gen is ALL about consistency/reliability. Nuke gives you that. Wind, solar, do not. About the only thing that is constant in these green environments is wave tech. Problem is all of the things that can tangle most wave generators. This may work fine for hot dry days… what about night, winter, inclement weather?

By: Scott Parker-Copestick

Scott Parker-Copestick — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:20:00 +0000

why would you change your name so that the anacronym is S.W.E.T.I?

By: Stan Stein

Stan Stein — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:35:00 +0000

In case someone wants an easy way to understand air being used as a force because of it’s weight…..here’s a weight measurement you can visualize right in your own home or office….
The air in a room 8’x10′ that has an 8ft ceiling, and is at sea level, at a standard room temperature range, weighs approximately 62#…. so the air in an average size bedroom room weighs about 125#….and in an average 3 brm home, the air would weigh about 1000# to 1200#. Now…think about your car, and figure that the air in your home weighs about 1/3 as much as your car weighs.

By: Stan Stein

Stan Stein — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:17:00 +0000

I wanted to stress the point that these hucksters are touting this contraption as a perpetual motion machine….and the only one in existance, operates with permanent magnets on a ring, and uses the opposing force of same polarity repulsion…however, the magnetic fields created in this manner, have no real risidual energy to drive anything else but the device itself.
Theoretically, the only way to “beat the odds” so to speak, of developing enough energy to exceed the various existing wind and solar devices, is to find a more efficient way to capture the energy from the sources they get it from, or to combine them to create a synergy.
Remember, the shoes of Da Vinci, Einstein, Planck et al, are pretty big to fill…but then again….nothing existed until someone invented it.
My company actually has a product which exceeds 100% efficiency. It’s a device that holds an average of about 20 common hand held size objects in a 3″x5″ space….such as sizzors, pens, rulers, a small stapler, cellphone, etc. and allows you to remove and replace all items with one hand, without anything needing to be held aside or removed to get to it….even if there is something like a paperclip with 10 other larger items surrounding it….so it IS possible to beat mother nature with something….However, not using this wind tower! Lol

By: Stan Stein

Stan Stein — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:10:00 +0000

There is no way reversing anything is going to raise millions of #s of air without using more energy than is produced…this contraption violates the laws of thermodynamics, and what you are saying, does it to an even higher degree.

By: Stan Stein

Stan Stein — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:51:00 +0000

It takes 4400 panels to produce 1 mw….and 1350 hp will absolutely lift millions of lbs of water up to the top of this thing….even THEY are saying it would take 1/3 of 2500 mw to run this thing….that’s about 800 mw, or 3,520,000 panels to power it…even if the pump used only 10th of that, it’s still 320,000 panels…..which would require about 160 acres, or more.
If you will read my previous post, from yesterday (2/3) you will have a lot more understanding of why this contraption could never work…..and not work with less power output…not work at all.
I’m not picking on you, as there are lots of posters who also mean well when posting, but please remember that there are some posters with science educations in these kinds of blogs….try to ask more than tell if you want credible answers

By: Anumakonda Jagadeesh

Anumakonda Jagadeesh — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 10:08:00 +0000

Very innovative approach to harness power from wind.
There is Wind Chimey.

Air is a fluid that has weight, so when it gets moving it exerts
pressure on anything that gets in its way. If you have experienced a fifty mile per hour wind, you know all about it. Just like water, air flows in eddies and currents when it gets turbulent, as it does flowing around obstacles. The fact that air is invisible makes diagnosing wind-induced venting failure mostly guesswork, but there is some science that provides guidance.

The higher the velocity of air flowing over a surface, the lower the pressure it exerts.The higher the velocity of a stream of air, the lower is the pressure that it exerts on the surface it is flowing over. It is this principle that gives an airplane wing its lift. For the same reason, wind flowing over the top of a chimney can increase draft by producing a driving pressure that assists in pulling exhaust gases from the chimney.

Despite the fact that wind flowing over a chimney can produce a driving pressure, it cannot be depended upon for appliance performance because it is variable and unpredictable. The only dependable driving pressure in a chimney operating on natural draft is produced by temperature difference.

Wind can force exhaust back down a chimney without a cap.For example, wind can often flow down towards the top of a chimney after passing over an obstacle like a roof, adjacent building or trees. Wind may also approach the top of a chimney from below after flowing up a roofline to a chimney penetrating the peak. Wind tunnel testing has demonstrated that wind flowing from either above or below the chimney top can be adverse to upward flow by creating positive pressure at the top of the chimney.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Wind Energy Expert

E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

By: Zer0Sum

Zer0Sum — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 05:01:00 +0000

They could put CSP/PV on the roof and sides of the tower and use that to generate the electricity needed to power the water pumps. They could also build them deeper into ground to get some more thermal efficiencies.

The process of construction would create a large number of “green” jobs and once built they would require very little maintenance. Certainly a hell of a lot less risky than any form of nuclear power generation.

There are so many ways to utilise the complete selection of solar/wind/thermal options in Hybrid solutions that we make ourselves look like complete idiots by continuing to rely exclusively on fossil fuels for our electricity production.

By: Stan Stein

Stan Stein — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:43:00 +0000

David, there would be almost no kinetic energy left after the turbines absorbed the energy from the falling air. Air loses heat so rapidly, that the available energy from the exhaust air’s movement from the turbine and it’s further travel would leave it with very little energy. Also, even though air is 800 times lighter than water, that volume of air weighs millions of tons.

By: Bob Bench

Bob Bench — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 18:46:00 +0000

This system would produce an enormous quantity of mineral deposits. Anyone who has ever used an evaporative cooler knows that these deposits cling tenaciously to the nearest surface. They are very difficult to remove.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:04:00 +0000

Crock.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:02:00 +0000

A small 2 MW wind turbine has about a 100 meter/300 foot “wing span”. An American football field.

Imagine the size and weight of a shroud that would direct wind into the blades. A 300′ wide doughnut, designed to “catch” the wind.

Imagine how strong the tower would have to be to support all that mass in a strong storm. Turbine blades can be turned so that their thin edge faces the wind when winds are too strong. The shroud would be a massive “sail” putting immense force in play to bring the tower down.

Stick your hand out the window of a fast moving car. Turn your palm toward the wind. Then the edge of your hand. Back and forth a couple of times.

Your palm is the shroud.

—

A net in front. It’s time to move past the bird kill stuff. Wind turbines kill so few birds that it is simply not important. Extensive field studies find that most turbines kill 0 to 2 birds a year.

Domestic cats in the United States kill up to 3.7 billion birds each year.

Cats that have outdoors access kill between 30 and 47 birds apiece in temperate parts of Europe and North America each year.

30 to 47 bird deaths per cat.

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-cats-billions-birds-mammals.html#jCp

Trillions of birds are going to have their habitat destroyed if we don’t prevent the worst of climate change.