Slashdot Mirror
Vertical Axis Wind Turbine With Push and Pull
Sterling D. Allan writes "After 10 years of prototyping, wind tunnel testing, patenting, and tweaking, Ron Taylor of Cheyenne (windy) Wyoming is ready to take his vertical axis wind turbine into commercial production. Design creates pull on the back side contributing to 40%+ wind conversion efficiencies. Because it spins at wind speed, it doesn't kill birds, and it runs more quietly. It also doesn't need to be installed as high, and it can withstand significantly higher winds (can generate in winds up to 70 mph, compared to ~54 mph tops for propeller designs). Generating costs estimated at 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, putting it in the lead pocket-book-wise not just of wind and solar, but of conventional power as well. Production prototype completion expected in 5-7 months."
Well blow me down!
Better is the enemy of good enough. - Russian proverb.
Yeah they do seem to let off alot of hot air don't they.
E.
Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
No, this guy is not full of hot air. He's not all bluster.
The technology does blow everything else away.
Yes, it will succeed, and not just in vertical markets.
It really took some gust to work on this.
----
Now I have to go back to bed in a fit of self-loathing.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Gee, ya think? Next you'll tell me that the interesting newspapers in the supermarket checkout don't perform rigorous fact checking. And I was so hoping to meet Elvis and bigfoot.
Yes, and even worse, it uses up the wind.
Yeah, but don't worry, it only targets the male birds
Maybe I could adjust rotating doors in shops to this design. Than it can power the lights or something like that. With enough wind, people will get sweeped into the store by this system too.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Is it really an advantage that it doesn't kill birds in these H5N1 times?
Bill - you need to get in touch with us immediately! Aunt Emma left you over one million dollars in her will! I can't post with my real identity right now for legal reasons, but PLEASE call me right away!
Bob
Did you say centripital force?
(Has a heart attack and falls over dead)
I'm sorry, you're using correct terminology and appear to know what you're talking about. I'm afraid I'll have to show you the door.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
So it both blows AND sucks?
Wind farms do less damage to the environment than any other form of power generation other than solar, and kill fewer birds than the windowed office building that would be built to house the adiminstration for any form of power plant.
This is a serious issue and needs to be addressed! How did solar power get away with causing so little damage?? I propose that all solar arrays be built slightly concave, and reflect most of the light they don't absorb (we don't want to reduce efficiency), creating giant death rays. This way we can ignite birds that fly through the kill zone and correct this serious deficiency.
In an unrelated issue, I'd also like some serious effort to be put into breeding chickens that can fly.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Even Heinz Tomato Source? *grin*
I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
Shhhh! I'm in the process of drafting an article about my Open-Source, DRM-enabled, Rootkit Deployable Space Elevator Control Module complete with Socket-F support and Carbon Nanotube flux control. It's cool. And it's 50% more efficient than anything being done today. The only thing holding me back is the RIAA and MPAA. . .
This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
When I was in the Netherlands last year, I toured a large wind park north of Groningen. There, under the turbines, I saw a total of:
1 dead bird
1 dead sheep
From this, we can deduce that wind turbines are equally as deadly to sheep as they are to birds. The 800-1300 sheep killed annually must make the Altamont Pass a bloodbath of truely horrific proportions.
But seriously, folks...
The Altamont Pass is a disaster which was produced by irresponsible economic incentives of the time which put up low quality turbines willy-nilly throughout California. Add to that the fact that many of Altamont Pass's are placed on angle-iron framework towers. These make them ideal nesting grounds--well, if one ignores the 30 m food processor out front. Modern towers take great care in leaving no place for avian habitation.
This park's would otherwise be just a regional problem, but, thanks to more animal-focused environmental groups, and the tabloids who eat up their press releases, that wind park is biting us over here in Europe in the ass.
Altamont Pass is, however, the only wind park on earth with this level of environmental impact. Nothing comes close in these regards. A substantially larger off-shore wind park off the coast of Denmark (Knoetby, I think) actually showed that the birds weren't scared off, but instead kept a distance of about 150 m from the equipment.
"The back pressure creates a vortex that pulls it around, turning drag into lift,"
Every time people say such things in a marketing blurb, an aerodynamicist dies. Clap your hands! Clap your hands to save them!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
To be quite fair to the grandparent, I've heard plenty of self-proclaimed environmentalists complain about aesthetics. Usually, though, they find some easier to argue position like "we have to think of the birds." Talking energy with them typically goes something like this:
Environut: Global warming is going to kill us all. We have to stop the evil oil companies bent of world destruction.
Engineer: Well then, let's invest some money in clean, reliable nuclear power plant design
Environut: Are you kidding. Those things are radioactive and they meltdown all the time. Plus Tom Brokaw says terrorists can blow them up with molotav cocktails and kill us all.
Engineer: I don't think you understand the issue fully, but ok, how about natural gas.
Environut: I heard through from my neighbor's, best friend's, third cousin who is an expert in environmental peace engineering at Evergreen Community College that natural gas tankers can explode with the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Engineer: The stored gas has equivalent chemical energy, yes, but it's release is dependent on the oxygen that can be supplied. The absolute worst case scenario is a really big fire. Still, if you're not comfortable with that, how about hydro power in locations where it's available?
Environut: Disrupts salmon spawning.
Engineer: Wind power?
Environut: Kills birds
Engineer: Geothermal?
Environut: Haven't you seen Core? You'll stop the earth's core from spinning, cause earthquakes, and kill the yellowstone geysers. Engineer: Umm, how about tidal generators for coastal cities?
Environut: Absolutely not. They destroy the reefs to build them and devastate the shoreline ecostructure by reducing wave action
Engineer: How about investing in Fusion research?
Environut: Doesn't that involve atoms? I don't like atoms and I think they should be banned by international treaty because terrorists can build dirty bombs out of them.
Engineer: I suppose you have something against solar power too?
Environut: Oh no. I love solar power. It will save us from global warming, cure world hunger, end racism, and get Barbara Streisand elected president.
Engineer: Well, it does have its benefits, but it's only practical in a limited part of the world and it's currently nowhere near as cost-effective as other forms of energy production
Environut: I knew it! You're just another puppet for big oil. Why do you hate the baby seals? What did they ever do to you? Murderer!
Ok, that's exagerated a little bit, but I bet if I pulled snippets from enough old posts on Slashdot, I could come up with that conversation without too much trouble.
Man, and i thought I was a geek