Inventors of Omnidirectional Wind Turbine Win James Dyson Award (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A spinning turbine that can capture wind traveling in any direction and could transform how consumers generate electricity in cities has won its inventors a prestigious international award and ~$38,000 prize. Nicolas Orellana, 36, and Yaseen Noorani, 24, MSc students at Lancaster University, scooped the James Dyson award for their O-Wind Turbine, which -- in a technological first -- takes advantage of both horizontal and vertical winds without requiring steering.

O-Wind Turbine is a 25cm sphere with geometric vents that sits on a fixed axis and spins when wind hits it from any direction. When wind energy turns the device, gears drive a generator that converts the power of the wind into electricity. The students believe the device, which could take at least five years to be put into commercial production, could be installed on large structures such as the side of a building or balcony, where wind speeds are highest. Dyson, who chose the winners, hailed it as "an ingenious concept." He continued: "Designing something that solves a problem is an intentionally broad brief. It invites talented, young inventors to do more than just identify real problems. It empowers them to use their ingenuity to develop inventive solutions. O-Wind Turbine does exactly that. It takes the enormous challenge of producing renewable energy and using geometry it can harness energy in places where we've scarcely been looking -- cities."

Comments

Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it first.

Re: Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

Presenting this to an authority and explaining what it is for so you can get feedback and coaching is easy when dyson is your guy

Re: Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You must be as smart as these guys

Re:Vertical wind vane

[Immerman]

Nope. At least not in general - there's a lot of vertical wind vane designs. In general though a vertical wind will not cause such a device to spin, which is something this is specifically designed to do, since unlike steady winds, turbulent winds among tall buildings can blow in any direction, not just parallel to the ground.

Re:Vertical wind vane

[110010001000]

Yeah, it is really revolutionary. There are factories pumping out the new designs as we speak.

Re: Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys are probably shocked they won such a prestigious award. Probably thank god at grace every day for it. I saw a blueprint of this design once. It used Swedish words and metric units that got in the way of understanding the details. I tried to sketch it on a napkin a barista gave me but there was no time. Been looking for a faithful representation ever since.

Re: Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

But this one won...

Re:Vertical wind vane

[Narcocide]

That's what I thought, too. But actually take a look at the video. The design looks really cool. I'm skeptical it actually works and the video is real, but if it's for real then it's actually a pretty tight propeller design. The vertical wind vanes only are omni-directional in 2D. Theoretically this thing can harvest wind coming from directly above or below it too.

Re: Vertical wind vane

[Narcocide]

There's a link to a youtube video in the summary.

Re:Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a version of a Savonius Rotor wind turbine.

These have been around a century very inefficient as it is always below wind speed, looks great has the benefit of self starting and vertical axis so it by design is always facing the wind, so good for urban environments, looks like improvements in the wind catching shape and the polymer injection manufacturing process. Well done!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Vertical wind vane

[thesupraman]

Excellent, now they can harvest all that vertical wind...

Unfortunately this is not their design, it was designed a long time ago and even tested on a NASA Rover toy..

More unfortunately, itcoversion efficiency, it's mass efficiency AND it's area efficiency all suck, and the idea of a 25cm model generating anything more than trivial power is a joke. A standard self directing propeller is much better efficiency.

It's only 'special' feature is dealing with non horizontal wind, which it does at even lower efficiency and which doesn't exist with any useful level of energy.

It could perhaps be deserving of a high school science fair win.. Maybe.
It winning any sorry if international award? If this was the best submission they should have just rolled the award over for next year.

Re: Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, those pesky, err, metric units :/

Re:Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know it's from its. Your math is suspect, and no, it's their design. Strike three, grab some pine suprameat, you have little idea of what you're blathering about.

Re:Vertical wind vane

[lgw]

It's obviously revolutionary - it's a turbine! Wouldn't be much good if it didn't revolve.

Re:Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Typo Cop Man. You've made your contribution to the thread by discovering and error. Pat yourself on the back for us.

Re: Vertical wind vane

[mikael]

Spinning Chimney Cowls

Re: Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a different AC, but we all know you're the same ass hole.

Re:Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, no it is not. vertical wind turbine covers only 2 axis (a plane perpendicular to its vertical axis). Unlike vertical wind turbine, this design can actually spin from any wind direction. Though, it would be interesting how they would apply the design to the real world.

Re: Vertical wind vane

[Anonymous Coward]

And as many people forget, wind doesn't blow fast enough all the time. Now, apartment dwellers need about x number of warrs of energy, to run heating, entertainment, and and say lighting. Say 2k watts per hour. Now enlarge the unit to turn a small generator, to charge a battery to supply one days worth of power. Or a week's worth, during the hottest and coolest periods, when the winds don't blow? Would you disconnect for the savings?

Impressive

[110010001000]

This is as impressive as last year's winner. It was a foldable paper biker helmet. Genius.

Re: Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing

Re: Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

But can it feed you potatoes that would make a grown man cry?

Re: Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatâ(TM)s nothing. This other team won the rice award for a radar device that could detect metal fragments in walls. Police used it to collect forensic evidence. They ended up giving it away free to a policemanâ(TM)s benevolent association

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

This works from any wind direction too... and is on millions of houses. So adding an itty-bitty motor on the shaft instead of just exhausting heat from an attic lands you a Dyson award?

https://batticdoor.com/images/roof-turbines.jpg

Re: Really?

[joao.cordeiro]

You do realize that those on your picture rotate because of heat coming out of the tubes, don't you?

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Wind blowing across the turbine on the outside of the roof moves the turbine blades and by design draws air out of an attic. There is no way thermal heat in an attic would move anything reliably. The only real difference between a roof turbine driven by the wind and this article is the expectation of "universal" power factor no matter the wind direction either horizontal or vertical.

http://www.winddriventurboventilator.com/use_of_ventilator.htm

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You went fulltard!

Re: Really?

[lgw]

No. Wind blowing across the turbine on the outside of the roof moves the turbine blades and by design goes "squeak squeak squeak" very loudly. They are extremely efficient in converting wind energy into irritation.

Re: Really?

[BringsApples]

So they cause humans to vent hot air?

Re: Really?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

No. Wind blowing across the turbine on the outside of the roof moves the turbine blades and by design draws air out of an attic. There is no way thermal heat in an attic would move anything reliably.

This is correct, it's not the heat or hot air coming out that causes the blades to turn, it's the wind passing by. The turbine rotates and draws air up and out.

More in depth article in text

[Crashmarik]

https://newatlas.com/2018-dyso...

Seems a little premature to get excited about

The team, from Lancaster University, tested their prototypes with a hairdryer, which was enough to prove its initial efficacy and win the UK national Dyson award a month ago, before being announced as the global winner today.

Re:More in depth article in text

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually surprised someone didn't invent something like this sooner, given access to computerized genetic algorithms and physics engines.

Re:More in depth article in text

[BringsApples]

Whatever, I can put one of these next to my wife and daughter's heads while they spend a combined hour, or more, on their hair in the mornings.

Re:More in depth article in text

[Crashmarik]

Well if you want real power you need to harness the energy of small children, to power those hair dryers in the first place.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Um, will it scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

Magnetic bearings for the win.

Re: Um, will it scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you

Yes...where would we ever get that idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=1970s+attic+wind+turbine&t=ffab&iax=images&ia=images/

Numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What non stalling load can it bear on horizontal steady winds from 3m/s to 30m/s. And same for each 5 angle increment. And same for each 50cm increase in diameter. Simple tests to be comparable to other designs. So far we only have "hairdryer blown unique form gadget looks hip, take my money". This diminishes the awards seriousness to clown level.

Re:Numbers?

[110010001000]

This is the James Dyson award. It just needs to look clever, not actually work. He has made millions off of that.

Re:Numbers?

[mnemotronic]

Mr. Dyson has made great, historic achievements in marketing and technobabble.

Re:Numbers?

[MrKaos]

This is the James Dyson award. It just needs to look clever, not actually work. He has made millions off of that.

His vacuum cleaners really suck.

Re:Numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget hypocrisy. That's an important one too.

Mr Brexit himself who has, since Brexit, which he was one of the most prominent supporters of, continued to build his vacuum cleaners in Malaysia, and said he'll build his electric cars in Singapore.

Thank god we have Brexiteers like him building the strong manufacturing base back in the UK like he promised!

The guy is an idiot through and through, like all Brexiteers he just wants out of the EU so he can have the UK turned into a tax haven with no minimum wage so he can just avoid tax at home and screw over desperate people, rather than having to send it abroad and pay a sensible salary. There's a reason all top Brexiteers just happen to be incredibly wealthy; it was never about the country.

Re:Numbers?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Dyson is an innovator, not an inventor. He invented none of the things that make his famous products possible: the bagless vacuum, the bladeless fan, and the airblade hand dryer all existed previously. What he did was made them practical and/or apply a little design and turn them into premium products. Kind of what Apple did with the iPhone.

I'll say this for his vacuums though: we've tried quite a few different bagless designs from various A brands (we provide them to our tenants and we wanted the most maintenance-free option), and so far I would only give the Dyson a passing grade. With many of the others you will spend more time cleaning the air filters than doing any actual vacuuming.

Re:Numbers?

[aaarrrgggh]

Are you kidding?! I have had three Dyson vacuum cleaners, one or two of those “bladeless” fans, and one other piece of his garbage. They are crap, don’t last, and really just have a bunch of extra plastic to try to look cool. Everything died within 2 years, but the fans take the cake. Simply no way to clean the high pressure fan, so in a dusty environment it gunks up internally in a couple months and becomes useless.

As for the vacuums, give me a Miele any day; the bags are a feature, not a bug.

Re:Numbers?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I thought they were the only things he made that didn't suck and his fans were the only things he made that didn't blow.

Re:Numbers?

[jittles]

Are you kidding?! I have had three Dyson vacuum cleaners, one or two of those “bladeless” fans, and one other piece of his garbage. They are crap, don’t last, and really just have a bunch of extra plastic to try to look cool. Everything died within 2 years, but the fans take the cake. Simply no way to clean the high pressure fan, so in a dusty environment it gunks up internally in a couple months and becomes useless.

As for the vacuums, give me a Miele any day; the bags are a feature, not a bug.

Don’t know what you’re doing wrong but I bought one of the animal cordless Dyson vacuums on Amazon as a refurbished unit. Cost me like $150 and it has been going strong for over 5 years.

Re:Numbers?

[aaarrrgggh]

I had an Animal. No, it would not break, it was indestructible. However, it quickly (6 months) hit a "smashing point" where its ability to actually pull dirt and dust up from the floor was a joke. Cleaning out the dirt compartment was a mess, and you had to wash it periodically. Got a Miele canister, which was half the physical size and weight as the Animal, better suction, no mess with emptying, and quieter.

Re:Numbers?

[aaarrrgggh]

Oops, missed you were talking about the cordless. Had one of them too. Battery crapped out after a year or so, not enough charge to clean up an 800SF apartment, and useless when it came to carpet. (In fairness, it was a vacation place, so only there once a month and that was understandably harder on the crap battery charger.)

Also replaced it with a Miele.

Re:Numbers?

[MrKaos]

That's what I meant. I'm glad someone got the joke.

The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[Applehu Akbar]

Is this device subject to the same problem, which is that at any moment half your vanes are moving INTO the wind?

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the angles. It's right there geometrically in front of you.

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[Anonymous Coward]

They 'invented' an attic vent:
https://www.homedepot.com/b/Heating-Venting-Cooling-Ventilation-Attic-Fans-Vents-Wind-Turbine/N-5yc1vZc665

It works, but it is hardly revolutionary. OK, I'll be here all week, folks...

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[thegarbz]

Is this device subject to the same problem, which is that at any moment half your vanes are moving INTO the wind?

Yes, but remember why vertical turbines still exist especially in an urban (reads building top) environment, they have other benefits. Efficiency is just one part of the equation.

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

That is the problem. The efficiency will be poorer compared to the propeller type, traditional three blade, wind turbines.

But, efficiency does not matter, because the source of energy, the wind, is practically free. So it does not matter if you waste 80% of zero cost thing or 60% of zero cost thing.

Its the cost per megawatt, maintenance etc that will determine its usability. Spins on vertical axis, does not need complex steering mechanism. large towers with super heavy horizontal load on top is not needed. It will cut down the cost a lot. Lots of internal wanes that will improve the structural integrity and you can probably get away with cheaper recycled plastic, reinforced with metal strips would be helpful. The same internal vanes prove a lot more of the "skin" to the airflow increasing the drag (and that is good in this case, more drag, more energy leaving the airstream and transferring to the turbine.)

Some shaping of the vanes, adjusting the gaps and passages, may be eject the air upwards etc might improve the design.

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

>

It works, but it is hardly revolutionary.

It spins. How much more revolutionary can it get?

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[Pollux]

When engineering, sometimes you have to trade efficiency for efficacy.

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[Anonymous Coward]

that and the other practical problem, namely you have to design a bearing for huge axial load. That makes it expensive at large scale. Maybe it's better than normal egg-beater style turbine because of the up-and-down wind thing, but it looks pretty hefty compared to other designs so there is mass too, creating (a) inertia) and (b) cost.

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It spins. How much more revolutionary can it get?

Well, for starters by growing a beard, wearing combat fatigues, and smoking a cigar. ;-)

Viva la revolucion!!

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[mark-t]

So it does not matter if you waste 80% of zero cost thing or 60% of zero cost thing.

It matters very much.... if you spend, say, half as much money building these but they only harness 20% as much energy, then it's not a positive return on investment.

Cheaper is always nice, but if you have to make an even greater compromise on efficiency than the amount of money you saved, then you aren't actually getting anything better for your dollar.

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[Anonymous Coward]

>Its the cost per megawatt, maintenance etc that will determine its usability.

But more efficiency improves that because you'd need to build fewer units.

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[drinkypoo]

That is the problem. The efficiency will be poorer compared to the propeller type, traditional three blade, wind turbines.

Or to a Savonius turbine, which predates our entire civilization.

But, efficiency does not matter, because the source of energy, the wind, is practically free. So it does not matter if you waste 80% of zero cost thing or 60% of zero cost thing.

Of course it matters. It matters a hell of a lot. That's because...

Its the cost per megawatt, maintenance etc that will determine its usability.

Well, that's part of it. The other part is that even if it makes more sense to spend the money in some other way, we're not working as a team but through competition, so some of these might get built even if it makes no sense whatsoever.

This design fails in three obvious ways. One, the way we're discussing here already. Two, it wastes still more efficiency with gearing. Three, it would be be more expensive per MW than current designs just based on its shape. And actually, just thought of four, making it smaller means making more of them means making more parts means more installation time and effort, and more maintenance time and effort.

All four of these factors will make them less desirable than bigger wind turbines sited someplace the wind has a more laminar flow. The problem is that putting them somewhere else requires grid upgrades. We should be upgrading the grid anyway, but we don't seem to be capable of prioritizing that. Consequently, it will make sense for some people to install devices like this. It doesn't make sense as a species, as a nation, or even as a city, but it will make sense for a smaller unit and they will do it anyway.

What makes the most sense is to site the power generation where the power is, and to upgrade the grid to enable shipping the power in from where it is. What we'll do is probably something else.

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Three, it would be be more expensive per MW than current designs just based on its shape.

That is the metric it will live and die by. If its installation cost per MW is too much it will die, without any arguments.

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Already existing design on shore windturbine without any subsidies competes with coal. Off shore design breakthroughs are just a matter of time. These off shore installations and their concrete caissons might actually be the seed that creates something the equivalent of the Great Barrier Reef!

Re:The vertical turbine efficiency problem

[drinkypoo]

That is the metric it will live and die by.

Nope. It's the installation cost to the individual that it will live and die by. The installation cost of a superior solution will be lower, but the individual making the purchase decision won't have the reach to make the correct decision, so they will make the most correct decision available to them.

There's no way in hell this is going to surpass existing wind turbine installations made in places where they actually make sense in cost per MW, but it will fit into smaller holes in smaller budgets and that is what will get it adopted, if anything.

Re: junk

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are no further questions...

Windy City

[Wolfrider]

/ me puts forth that Chicago should be the 1st city to test implementation...

Re: Windy City

[Anonymous Coward]

O Hare is always open

Re: Windy City

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it when people come to Chicago and get their hats blown off in the wind. Priceless!

Wow, $38000!

[93 Escort Wagon]

With that much money, they could afford to purchase both a Dyson fan AND a Dyson vacuum cleaner for each of their dorm rooms!

Re: Wow, $38000!

[Anonymous Coward]

Didnâ(TM)t they graduate?

Re:Wow, $38000!

[Misagon]

A guy who had been my boss went on to lead a team who won an award for the same idea: small wind-turbines for city roof tops. The turbine had a different shape though (and was probably much less effective).

He was an alcoholic ... so he spent the prize money on booze.

A vacuum cleaner and a fan would still have been better.

Re: Wow, $38000!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol I had no idea college students vacuumed

Re:Wow, $38000!

[JaredOfEuropa]

so he spent the prize money on booze. A vacuum cleaner and a fan would still have been better.

Disagree.

Re:Wow, $38000!

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad he did not just waste it.

Re:junk

[Anonymous Coward]

Those considering "alternative energy" should also consider mathematics of real energy intensive requirements, like concrete and steel making.
Power a steel plant with a wind farm? You must be joking.
Peak energy demands at the hours after 7pm, will not be met with solar. Wind energy is not reliable in most places. Repairing wind generators is hazardous. What is the safety record of these? Frankly solar and wind is junk, and plays well into Coal interests.
The government should resume the MSRE from 1971 and drop alternative energy subsidies. LFTR can be installed at coal and gas plants.
They are much smaller, and the safety profile is very different from (2000 psi) water reactors. The current regulatory environment has not much relevant to Liquid salt reactors, and they would have to rethink everything. Their main safety philosophy has been the worst, but unlikely events. Fukushima was based on a number of very bad design decisions, including placing backup generators below grade, in a tsunami zone with very low wave barriers. They also shut down the reactors and thus killed their main power output that could run circulation pumps. What happened to grid power when their own backups failed? Do not blame "nuclear" energy on this series of massive design and operational blunders.

Pretty cool

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Nifty idea and I can see a lot of potential applications, especially when these are used in groups of small or medium size turbines.

Props to these guys for working this out.

25cm across

[quenda]

At 25cm diameter, we can't really go calling it a Dyson Sphere.

Zach Patterson / ZIP "Greatest Hits" (lol, not)

[Anonymous Coward]

See how STUPID "ZIP" (Zach Patterson) the CHIMP is (tried to take credit for what I solved before him) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he needs to LEARN TO READ)!

I even SHOW ways to do it YOURSELF https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he couldn't).

Delphi/FreePascal/ObjectPascal HAS no issue w/ null-term'd string bufferoverflows https://developers.slashdot.or... - C does, C++ can UNLESS you do what I said 1st loser.

Tell us about CODE SIGNING (which has been STOLEN & ABUSED) https://www.helpnetsecurity.co... MY METHOD CAN'T BE (upmodded +2 INTERESTING in CODING FOR DEFCON no less) https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

"I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082)

BIG TALK - Yet ZIP has nothing to show in programs. I can https://news.slashdot.org/comm... from registered /.ers liking/using/praising my work (& 100k users worldwide too). He can't.

LIAR ZIP says he has no account "I don't have an account, so I don't have mod points" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

Yet LIAR ZIP says he downmods my posts (IMPOSSIBLE MINUS AN ACCOUNT on /.): "I down-modded a few of your post on other threads" - by Anonymous Coward "ZIP" on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:31AM (#57461058) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

APK

P.S.=> KEEP IMPERSONATING ME CHIMP https://science.slashdot.org/c... - this comes out every time EXPOSING your BLOWHARD incompetence... apk

Zach Patterson / ZIP = "better programmer" - not

[Anonymous Coward]

You said it ZIP: Where's your work everyone can see/use? It's not. It's HOTAIRWARE/NOTWARE (lol) "I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082)

The BETTER PROGRAMMER w/ no programs, lol - @ least you can say your "code" has NO BUGS - of course, it also does ZERO (like you) since it does nothing @ all, lol!

You hotair BLOWHARD talker, lol!

You f'd up ZIP https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

Yet 100,000++ users of my ware & dozens of even REGISTERED /.ers like/use/praise MY work https://news.slashdot.org/comm... vs. your HOTAIR talk punk!

* LMAO!

(Let's see how YOU take it when I publicly SHIT ALL OVER YOU by letting FACTS of YOUR FUCKUPS vs. ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... do the job for me)

APK

P.S.=> You STUPID & LAZY all talk chimpanzee - KEEP IMPERSONATING me https://science.slashdot.org/c... - I'll expose your BLOWHARD INCOMPETENCE publicly, lol... apk

The myth of nuclear unavoidability

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not blame "nuclear" energy on this series of massive design and operational blunders.

The biggest blunder lies in thinking that any form of nuclear is needed in the first place. ... And then subsequently, that blunder being compounded by completely and very conveniently ignoring the astronomic externality costs of all nuclear energy technologies.

It seems that the ability of electricity from renewable sources to travel along wires from where it's currently plentiful to where it's currently needed is completely unknown to nuclear advocates.

(Hint: when renewable energy is harvested widely enough, not even the energy loss with distance matters to any great extent, especially when regional providers give and take among themselves on demand --- it all evens out. What's more, we're nearly there already, as the cost of electricity has been dipping below zero periodically in many countries because of the impact of renewables. Not only is nuclear not needed, it's not even a viable business anymore as the cost of energy plummets and the hiding of externalities is disallowed.)

Re:The myth of nuclear unavoidability

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah yeah, externalities

like fucking batteries that wind and solar need but are not counted

(or like needing a normal power station to be idling for when the wind drops or a cloud rolls over)

with wind or solar all the external shit is ignored, the fact that you have to pay more than twice over for unreliable power is ignored by green loons..

Re:The myth of nuclear unavoidability

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the deaths per terawatt of nuclear energy produced, you will understand quickly why everyone shuns it. Statistics do not lie.

Interesting but how does it compare?

[jd]

The alternative energy centre in Wales has had omnidirectional wind turbines for twenty or thirty years.

This may well be superior in some way or ways, but which ones? To what degree?

Re:Interesting but how does it compare?

[spth]

Vertical axis wind turbines that work with wind coming from any side have been around for a while (though not as large-scale commercial installations.

The new feature here is that this turbine also works with wind coming from below or above.

Re:Interesting but how does it compare?

[PvtVoid]

The new feature here is that this turbine also works with wind coming from below or above.

Awesome. When I move to a planet with vertical wind, I'll let them know.

Re:Interesting but how does it compare?

[Anonymous Coward]

Move to a tall building.

Re:Interesting but how does it compare?

[Anonymous Coward]

Walk around the top of a fairly tall building.
Ever seen a plastic bag blowing along the street, and then as it gets near a building it starts going up, and just keeps climbing?
Try chatting with the folks who wash windows sometime.
Spots where you can balance a piece of cardboard on the wind coming up from below, and you tuck your pants legs in your socks on cool days because the wind blows up them.

slick

[WindBourne]

First decent design in quite some time.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The comedy of nuclear in 2018

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear advocates sure don't like being shown that their advocacy is full of holes, do they. :P The word "externalities" stings strongly, and it's their nemesis.

Fortunately it doesn't matter how doggedly they stick to their blind narrative and wishful thinking. The world of renewables is growing steadily without needing their support, and is inexorably turning traditional energy sources non-viable as a business.

Nuclear isn't special in that regard, and is becoming obsolete just like all the rest. The only special thing about it is that it's the least viable of the lot.

Re:The comedy of nuclear in 2018

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry but thats just bullshit.

renewables need STORAGE, or an idling power plant to take over..

so you pay twice but ignore the exteranl shit keeping it viable

Re:Um, will it scale?

[Pinky's Brain]

The wind energy available at rooftop level is pitiful.

It will be just as useful when the bearings seize as when it moves.

Gears? Gears?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you all full of grease? Hello, gears? NO.

You wind the motor on the bottom of the turbine to generate the amperes at the voltage you think the blower will do, and then you run that power down wires to another motor wound differently to put that power into the grid.

Morons. Given electric motors, there is no need for a geared drivetrain.

AC

Award PR

[spinitch]

PR not bad for this award regardless of its merit. The other entries might have been less marketable. Lava lamps has their run.

bowling CAPTCHA: pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

Next hurricane we'll see videos of these crushing cars in the streets.

Flat Earthers.....

[Anonymous Coward]

..will still deny its existence.

Too much material?

[Fraa Jad]

Looks like this design uses an awful lot of material. I wonder if that really scales, both physically (weight) and economically (cost).

Re:Too much material?

[PPH]

This.

The simple approximation of power available to a wind turbine involves the mass of air crossing the 'swept area' of the turbine per unit time. There is no escaping the fact that the more power you want, the larger this swept area has to be. Hence the long blades on 'typical' wind machines.

Re:Dyson is all marketing, no substance these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Those hand dryers are often confused with urinals here in the US.

Found some real jokers

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be joking.

Wind turbines could power Scottish smelter and steel plants

Oh, the bloke who makes vacuum cleaners.

[Maritz]

Gotta love how the Brits make out like James Dyson is a living Einstein or Newton. He makes vacuum cleaners. Overpriced vacuum cleaners.

Re:Oh, the bloke who makes vacuum cleaners.

[kaatochacha]

Yeah, but he has a BRITISH accent, which is cool. Unlike Einstein, whose German accent is evil and reminds us of Nazis...

UK wind power surpasses nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

2017: UK wind power surpasses nuclear

2018: UK wind power surpasses nuclear over a quarter

Re:Dyson is all marketing, no substance these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Based americans patriotically defending good design by proving nature invents a better idiot.

Clue#1

[ElitistWhiner]

5 years to commercialize!

OK so their 1st product will be... wait...wait...wait...wait...wait

DYSON produces the ARTIS CAP for chimney's that SUCKS. thanks to who? It will greatly fix fireplaces that draft poorly or not at all.

wait...wait...wait

The original inventors will not go into electricity

This product looks unprofitable due to inertial mass above the rotational bearing point.

Dimensionally silly...

[Ancient_Hacker]

So this thing takes up 3D space to collect 2D air. Doesn't sound like anything that is going to scale up, it's going to top out at a pretty small size. Propeller efficiency is a very well studied field and this certainly isn't a top performer.

Energy storage abounds and is renewable

[Anonymous Coward]

renewables need STORAGE

Sure thing, here's a list of the larger pumped storage facilities around the globe.: List of pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations

They're not exactly rare, and there are plenty more below that 1,000MW threshold.

Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

So this is a modified Darrieus design then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrieus_wind_turbine

Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Five years from now, we'll be seeing overpriced vacuums with one of these stuck on it, forever spinning...

Re:I HATE ZIP for BULLYING me... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"...by getting calf implants"

I didn't even know that was a thing. (??)

Power a steel plant with a wind farm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Inconceivable.