Regarding the performance of my newly designed turbine

[Revi]

I recently have made a working prototype of a turbine (a design based on Michael Waters work) and tested it without load before putting it before a table fan generating 6 m/s wind velocity. The overall diameter of the turbine is 25 cm, As per the basic calculations, the power contained by 6 m/s flow hitting a 23 cm diameter turbine is 5.5944168588 W. I measured the RPM of the turbine and found that to be 6.0480558046875 W. In short, the rotational kinetic energy contained by the turbine 8% more than the power supplied by the flow. And from the second photo, anyone can see that two ball bearings are attached to the turbine and for such a small turbine, the frictional loss from the bearings are not negligible. IMO the extra output will be 20% if the frictional loss from the bearings are added to it. I just want to say that this extra energy has been achieved by the special design, where the Edge Effect is used to enhance the flow hitting the middle part of the turbine and force that towards the periphery with higher velocity.
It's not costly to make a working prototype of the the turbine and testing it. If anyone is curious to test the results, I will send him/her a model turbine (NOT at my own cost of course, he/she has to pay the printing and transportation charge, but that wouldn't be much). Attached here are two photos of the turbine.

 

[sunshine_eggo]

I recently have made a working prototype of a turbine (a design based on Michael Waters work) and tested it without load before putting it before a table fan generating 6 m/s wind velocity. The overall diameter of the turbine is 25 cm, As per the basic calculations, the power contained by 6 m/s flow hitting a 23 cm diameter turbine is 5.5944168588 W. I measured the RPM of the turbine and found that to be 6.0480558046875 W. In short, the rotational kinetic energy contained by the turbine 8% more than the power supplied by the flow. And from the second photo, anyone can see that two ball bearings are attached to the turbine and for such a small turbine, the frictional loss from the bearings are not negligible. IMO the extra output will be 20% if the frictional loss from the bearings are added to it. I just want to say that this extra energy has been achieved by the special design, where the Edge Effect is used to enhance the flow hitting the middle part of the turbine and force that towards the periphery with higher velocity.
It's not costly to make a working prototype of the the turbine and testing it. If anyone is curious to test the results, I will send him/her a model turbine (NOT at my own cost of course, he/she has to pay the printing and transportation charge, but that wouldn't be much). Attached here are two photos of the turbine.

23 or 25cm? YOu said both.

For HAWT:

When I run a 25cm dia wind turbine @ 6m/s, I get 6.494W.
When I run a 23cm dia wind turbine @ 6m/s, I get 5.497W.

No matter what, you can't extract more energy from the wind than is present in the wind. If you are calculating/measuring otherwise, you have made an error.

Supply the model, and I'll print my own, though I'm limited to 270x200mm.

 

[DougfromdaUP]

I wouldn’t trust the measurement you only reported to fourteen significant digits. Too imprecise.

 

[OzSolar]

 

[marionw]

23 or 25cm? YOu said both.

For HAWT:

When I run a 25cm dia wind turbine @ 6m/s, I get 6.494W.
When I run a 23cm dia wind turbine @ 6m/s, I get 5.497W.

No matter what, you can't extract more energy from the wind than is present in the wind. If you are calculating/measuring otherwise, you have made an error.

Supply the model, and I'll print my own, though I'm limited to 270x200mm.

You CAN extract a lot of energy from wind depending on the kind of beans you ate. The method of capture as well as when ignited will cause a flaming a-hole at which time your body will produce copious amounts of energy searching for a fire extinguisher not to say what energy could be captured by the expanding fireball.

 

[Revi]

23 or 25cm? YOu said both.

For HAWT:

When I run a 25cm dia wind turbine @ 6m/s, I get 6.494W.
When I run a 23cm dia wind turbine @ 6m/s, I get 5.497W.

No matter what, you can't extract more energy from the wind than is present in the wind. If you are calculating/measuring otherwise, you have made an error.

Supply the model, and I'll print my own, though I'm limited to 270x200mm.

The overall diameter is 25 cm but when you have to calculate the flow hitting area, it's 23 cm. Kindly look at the photos and you can see a 1 cm band at the outer periphery. The flow hitting this area can't be used to rotate the turbine. And, regarding sharing the design, kindly inbox me.

 

[Revi]

I wouldn’t trust the measurement you only reported to fourteen significant digits. Too imprecise.

No Problem. Better make your own model and test it and check whether what I am saying is true or not.

 

[brandnewb]

no no no this is not how it works Revi.

You have to come up with your plan and then also be able to backup your results.

25CM? That is not even going to produce enough power to have a ROI given 400 years.

Please try the omnicalculator wind turbine (even though I am not sure I trust it) It will give you a rough estimate.

For hobby and tinkering great. have at it. But don't expect anything other than time and money flowing out.

If you want to build up a reputation of being a little weird or even crazy like me then this is not a bad start But even I am already in the 8+ meters range and still think I should be upscaling.

 

[wpns]

measured the RPM of the turbine and found that to be 6.0480558046875 W

How does one calculate power from RPM?

 

[brandnewb]

How does one calculate power from RPM?

one can perhaps if one has a deep understanding of electromagnetic physics. I for one am not one of them so I need to rely on measurements. I expect nothing else from wild claims I just saw here

 

[wpns]

one can perhaps if one has a deep understanding of electromagnetic physics. I for one am not one of them so I need to rely on measurements. I expect nothing else from wild claims I just saw here

Don’t see any electromagnetics in those pictures

 

[brandnewb]

Don’t see any electromagnetics in those pictures

yeah, so this new guy might just be out of place here as he does not yet fully respect that we deal with facts.measurements and science here.

I have seen a trillion of videos on youtube made by people from that part of the world. It looks great but never ever does it do showing actual results.

I would love for this forum to not allow for that. We already have youtube if one feels the need to spread misinformation.

 

[SeaGal]

Whoo hooo... we get 8% more energy out than in! So just feed the generated energy to another fan to generate more wind, recapture that and gain another 8% - world's energy problems solved

 

[Revi]

In reply to all, I just want to say that the best way is make a turbine based on design by yourself and test it. If anybody is interested to do, kindly inbox me.

 

[Revi]

Whoo hooo... we get 8% more energy out than in! So just feed the generated energy to another fan to generate more wind, recapture that and gain another 8% - world's energy problems solved

Unbelieveabel! Right! Then better make one and test it. A common household table fan will be enough to test the turbine. And, just for your information, the geometry of the turbine is a factor here. The flow striking the body has been forced to pass towards the edge and thereby the Edge effect is being used. By Edge effect, the flow is accelerated and this increased output is a result of the acceleration. In short, not theoretically impossible.

 

[wpns]

Unbelieveabel!

As in "we don't believe it", "Incredible" as in "That's not credible". You forgot to answer how you calculate output power from RPM.

 

[Revi]

I just followed the method shown in this video.

 

[Tulex]

Yeah, listen to Brandnewb, he's been at it for years, and all he has to show for it is a pissed off wife.

 

[brandnewb]

I just followed the method shown in this video.

The problem I expressed at one time with this particular guy that made the video is that I have yet to see him show actual results.

Sure cool, it is inspiring the concepts he brings forth but a Betz beater I find just wildly bizar and in demand of a RED FLAG if I ever saw it.

I have spoken once on my opinion about this Murray guy and got an instant loss of goodwill by one of the people I still hold dear on fieldlines.

So why don't you try what I do to see if you are getting anywhere worthwhile. (Assuming like me you can't use any formal recognized equations to get to the same results due to ignorance)

Just measure the mT (field strength) at several points. The Frequency of field reversal, RPM, Load, Power and what have we.

Do that and you will see what we all are trying to tell you.

In case you do not know yet how to do that then take a look at what I am struggling with.

Yeah, listen to Brandnewb, he's been at it for years, and all he has to show for it is a pissed off wife.

There is light at the end of the tunnel though. Did you see that in the meantime there is no longer a question regarding if my current PMA is any better than the one I was trying to improve upon?

Somewhere early next week I will update my thread with the final results. And then there is at least that to show for. Sure I have to still walk on eggshells with my wife

Can't win all battles I am learning the hard way

 

[PVGeezer]

Sure cool, it is inspiring the concepts he brings forth but a Betz beater I find just wildly bizar and in demand of a RED FLAG if I ever saw it.

This. And not just bizzare. Physically impossible.

So why don't you try what I do to see if you are getting anywhere worthwhile. (Assuming like me you can't use any formal recognized equations to get to the same results due to ignorance)

Why not just use the formal recognized equations?



Here's what I don't get about threads like this. Why do folks spend time and effort on stuff that 5 minutes basic web research tells you can't be valid?

The physics is clear, my question is about the psychology.

Is looking up the Betz law proof on Wikipedia really that hard? It doesn't even require calculus to follow, just some basic high school algebra. And if that's too hard then why not just accept the results? Betz' formulation has only been subject to peer review for 106 years.....

 

[brandnewb]

Why not just use the formal recognized equations?

Well, I for one do not know yet how to do that due to ignorance due to intimidation.

Even if I would find the one formula that is applicable in my use case then my head goes .... BOOM


syntax error


I just am not willing yet to spend the time needed to get myself over the finish line and finally form an intuition on how complex formulas work.

So I have to do with what I can for now. As long as the end result is acceptable to a group of well minded people.

 

[brandnewb]

The physics is clear, my question is about the psychology.

and yes, that is indeed the conundrum. This flat earth or even the willlingness to accept an unproven god might never be fully understood.

Cult, Sense of brotherhood. Indoctrination, fear of outside opinion, I know not too much about it.

There is some information on the syc (psychological) aspects at play though.

For me one of the interesting one was the one by 'Folding Ideas" on youtube unwrapping the flat earthers.

It's easy to extend that to any and all weird offshoots like free energy devices.

 

[Crowz]

The guy is offering the model for people to print and try. No point in going postal on him.

 

[PVGeezer]

and yes, that is indeed the conundrum. This flat earth or even the willlingness to accept an unproven god might never be fully understood.

Cult, Sense of brotherhood. Indoctrination, fear of outside opinion, I know not too much about it.

There is some information on the syc (psychological) aspects at play though.

For me one of the interesting one was the one by 'Folding Ideas" on youtube unwrapping the flat earthers.

It's easy to extend that to any and all weird offshoots like free energy devices.

It's definitely gotten worse with the advent of social media. I think laziness is also part of it. Used to be in the hard sciences (theology and social sciences are something else) folks either put in the effort to learn the math, science, or engineering or accepted the results from those that did. Now seems like everyone is a 5 minute expert.

 

[wpns]

I just followed the method shown in this video.

Pretend I don't want to watch a video, and explain it to me like I'm five: How do you calculate power from RPM with no load?