Yes "cardboard" has been commercially viable for years. I could use the same wind mill that you said wouldn’t work and lift the same load you lifted with yours. I saw how slow it was lifting. It’s called gear reduction. Hell I could lift 10 cars with a hand crank if I gear it right. That doesn’t mean it’s efficient to do so.
If you and I were neibouring farmers in the aussie out back and needed to pump water from an underground lake,I would choose an IRON MAN WIND PUMP and you A VESTAS Type 3 Bladed scientifically designed aerofoil same dia. you would pump 90% less water than me because you only used 10% of the available sweep area.Your cattle would die,your kids and you to,and I'd be shagging your wife in exchange for a glass of water.Law of the jungle bird brain.R.I.P.
Hi Shiteforbrains,take a look at " Iron man windmills" web site.Try telling them to change their multiple blade design to 3 mickey mousy turbine blades and see what they say.They don't even use the middle 33% because that part does F!*^k all.Three of your type blades would pump just 10% of water if the same diameter of construction was used,any twat can see that.Go on,contact them with your f*^!king brainless ideas.They'll tell you to F*^!k off.
@mooreandwright I won't hold my breath waiting for your miracle to take the market by storm. As for who has shiteforbrains, That is plainly evident in your video. You appear to be trying to prove a point, which you will never do with the worst science I have ever seen. Some will view your bonehead test as fact(why I comented). I draw two conclusions from your video. 1. You are delibertly trying to mislead. 2. You really don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate. Both are sad!
@mooreandwright I won't hold my breath waiting for your miracle to take the market by storm. As for who has shietforbrains, That is plainly evident in your video. You appear to be trying to prove a point, which you will never do with the worst science I have ever seen. Some will view your bonehead test as fact(why I comented). I draw two conclusions from your video. 1.You are delibertly trying to mislead. 2. You really don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate. Both are sad!
Listen bonehead,if you built a wind turbine to pump water and used that stupid three airfoil design you would pump f all,thats why they use 20 or more flat metal or wooden blades in the outback of USA and aussieland.See the film Austrailia with Nicole Kidman.They couldn't afford to f*!^ about with"PROPER" airfoils you numbskull.
@mooreandwright And who builds with flat plates today? Your demonstration is flawed because it compares apples to oranges. You are feeding a 1009 sq/in "collector" with around a 300 sq/in? "pulsed" and turbulent windsource and calling it no good, yet feeding your 430 sq/in wonder with the same 300 sq/in source and are amazed at it's performance. Obviously your wonder has a bunch of blades to catch the pulsed input better and is better sized to the source. sorry, still piss poor science
@mooreandwright And to add, they built with falt plates back when because they didn't know any better. As early as the 1920's, bout the time metal blades came on the scene, you start to see windmills showing up with a twisted shape to better turn wind into torque. You say your 1:50 3 blade is a scale model. That sir is not true! IT lacks a proper scale airfoil. Again piss poor science!
@mooreandwright Sorry, I misunderstood and thought you said 1009, not 1500 sq/in for the 3 blade ACA. Even more horribly missmatched from the source. A helicopter gets most lift from it's blade tips. A windmill develops most of it's torque from its blade tips. No wind even blows there in your demo. Your model has a large plate in the center where a good portion of the air is directed. It should have blade roots and a smooth cone spinner. Very unfair comparison, and yet again piss poor science
It is clearly evident that the visible wind turbine model, besides being inaccurate because it does not have a twisted/washed out airfoil, has a large collection area being powered by a narrow column wind source fan. It is clear that the hidden model IS optimized for the narrow colum windsource. With a proper airfoil(as they are really built) and both put out in an open breeze, your hidden model would fall on it's face in terms of output. said best 5 months ago. You sir... are an idiot!
it's not noise that matters,the hydro electric generators make far more noise but nobady complains.My generators obviously need to be in the middle of nowhere.
In the UK it's noise that matters. If you could generate the same power as a conventional design but with half the noise you might be onto a winner. But remember Betz law applies.
In conventional wind turbines there is a trade-off between torque on one hand and rotational speed on the other. If the goal is to produce electricity it is far more important to get the generator to rotate as fast as possible than to get maximum torque. Thats why the design trend has gone from many blades (i.e. wind wheels used to pump water) to few blades.
The reason three blades are chosen before one or two blades is mainly due to stability.
hi,look gears are what make the generator go faster not the blade speed.The more torque you create the faster the gen will go when geared up.My design will out torque any conventional by 6 to one.Allso my design will out live them by 10 to one with only an occasional simple bearing change.My design is 6 times cheaper to build,zero maintainence,no silly serviice contract.I'LL SHOW YOU ALL SOON.
the more blades a mill has the more power it will produce but as each blade passes through the air it creates a wake that interferes with the one following therefore reducing the overall efficiency. 5 blades is the best design as it creates the most power with the least loss in power. You can have as many blades as you want but if I made one with 5 it would be better all round than yours.
For those of you who don't know, the vetical wind turbine was invented and documented by an Arab scientist several hundred years ago and was employed to grind grains into flour. Oddly enough, even though its design is well documented, those built today are not as powerful, usually because they all miss an important design feature. In order for vertical turbines to be efficient, they need to be enclosed in a housing designed to channel airflow into the impellers at a correct deflection angle.
As Spikeychops says, maybe you should share the design if it will save the world. Your initial demonstration is rubbish anyway. Are you aware of the way in which conventional HAWTs work? You model made from cardboard, with a house fan blowing on it is hardly representative or efficient. Go back to making precision measuring equipment.
So, almost two years down the road and are the orders flying in (no pun)?
Have you been offered millions of £'s for your design?
I seriously doubt it. If you truly have discovered an ultra efficient design, share it man! Open source the design, get a Paypal account and ask for donations if money's your thing. You'll probably end up with more than if you sold it. OK, a LOT won't pay a penny, but a LOT will. Think of the people, think of the planet, not just your bank account mate. Up to you
It's a shame that we as people in a monetary based systm must feel like hiding our ideas. I like the resource-based economy idea. Watch TED Talks and/or listen to people like Jacque Fresco . It is time to wake up. Sharing IS caring. There is a difference between a parasite and an organism And We on this planet must learn to not live on it, but with it. Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong. Thanx
How are you lifting the bags of sugar? (In other words, how would it be attached to the prototype).
The only thing that could be associated with the lifting of the sugar is the small hole with that tube of wire poking through (Just a little observation, but I think that poked through the hole half way through the video because I cant see it until 1:37 but I can see it after 1:44 when he's switching to the prototype).
Hmm..the 'experiment' is flawed from it's conception, up to and including this 'Presentation', which, BTW, screams either scam or copyright fear garnished with greed. At best 'your' design is a more efficient squirrel cage which in fact has been proven more efficient than props, but compared to the supply fan's ACA efficiency vs. your designs', if you argue your's is more, keep it behind the partion and re-route the collected air to the rear of the supply. You might want to do some research...?
wind collecter ? well a sail has been said to collect the wind a bucket collecets water and a copasitor collecets energey we shaer to help each other so we are helping what are you up to are you a comidian or a money hungrey genues ither way i am done with you se your stuff at wall mart genues or in the funnys
Hi, Look, I have to go to work to support my Mortgage so I can,t answer too many questions.One day soon I will pull the sheet down and show you ALL how stupid the propellors are at collecting wind.Don't you see,they are PROPELLORS NOT COLLECTORS.
OK. I'm American and will do the math as you asked. It looks like you raised 6.6 pounds 0.5 feet in 30 seconds. That is 6.6ft lb/min. Converting to Watts that is equal to 0.149 Watts. You were blowing at 50 Watts so your efficiency is 0.149/50 =0.3% .
A typical small 3 blade generator is 18-25% efficient and the large, variable pitch turbines around the world are approaching the Betz limit of 56% at speed.
Come on dude, why would you post this causing arguement about what wind turbine is better and YOU CANT SHOW WHAT IS IS YOU"MADE"??? how is this EVEN RELIVENT???????? take this post down or show whats behind the curtin!!!
good experiment but it was inconclusive. You may have had a cordless drill doing the work behind the cardboard. Too bad. I would love to see your craftsmanship and the turbine you have created. Good luck
one of the 5 worst videos I have seen on youtube. Your an engineer? Really? And you don't understand the relationship between torque, speed, and power?
Well I can't see the size and wind area of yours compared to your model standard turbine. However, your standard turbine does not have the same type of airfoils as a modern engineered turbine and you really would have a hard time beating those. Sure it's worth a try but trust me you likely won't, there is a lot more to the picture than meets the eye when looking a those monsters. They are highly engineered and the airfoils are complex not flat. It takes calculus to really do the math on those.
There is nothing in this video that would convince anyone that you have come up with anything new at all. Half of your experiment is "hidden". You really don't expect anyone to take it seriously do you? If It's real show it. If it really works, sell it. There are plenty of claims out there of revolutionary inventions. If it works build a prototype and prove it...By generating real usable power. You have been challenged. Prove us doubters wrong.
i think you two are crazy and are wasting your time writting what to do or show the spooky secret machine , maby moore is doing something well and honorable or maby her grand son is behind the wall we don´t know but really make me laugh
Did anyone touch on the point that this was done in a room where the air movement was totally controlled, not to mention how much space is beside his "new" model, and what is the mechanical advantage of what ever is tied to the weight?
The test is a perfect amateur method of testing prototype turbine designs for efficiency.they can be tested outside in real wind if you like.The weights aren't doing work the are being lifted by wind power?
Hi, please understand, when you are looking for tiny improvements in designs you may have to consider these equasions but when you are dealing with designs that are so flawed in their it basic design it doesnt need rocket science or reynolds # to test one model against another.If my design was just twice as efficient as another then I would need to look at these flawed experiments,but my design is so superior in performance in this flawed test that nitpicking the test is irrellevant.
So what you need to do is look at Betz limit. It's the theoretical maximum amount of energy you can extract from the wind. The exact value is 16/27 (0.5926) or 59.26%. Modern turbines can get about 45 %, maybe 50% for big ones offshore. So a factor of two increase in efficiency will be impossible, much less any more. Here is my guess. Your "conventional" turbine model is maybe 5-10 % efficient. So compared to that, your design could be 2 or 3 times efficient but still less than modern turbines
But my main point is that your "invention" or whatever you want to call it is behind a barrier, thus, I cannot see what "it" is. Who is to say that it isn't just a trick or something. Post a video of the mechanism or device where we can actually see it in action, not just a mysterious device with a little axle poking out through some cardboard. So show me the device without the barrier, and show us all exactly what it does, then I will believe you have something, if it holds up to your claims.
at every level,the mere fact that they can be stopped at the hub in high wind proves they are pathetic,you would have to blow my design up to stop it in high wind.Of course,when we repair these things at budget prices to get them up and running again we only guarantee such repairs for 12 months.We're not running a charity.Full and proper repairs would cost a fortune so they get the minimum as per customers request.
They already cost a fortune to dismantle so nothing left for a good repair.
I am not arguing with you about economics or maintenance incurred by one design over the other. You need to listen. My point is that your test is flawed, so drawing conclusions from it will by default be flawed. So claiming your design is better due to its performance in a flawed test is asinine. On a side note, if you really are an engineer (other than electrical maybe) you should have at least heard of Reynolds #. It is a fundamental in fluid flow that any good engineer should know about.
For one thing, those blades are not at the correct pitch or shape to be compared to a conventional turbine. Also, your little fan is not delivering its airflow to the entire area of the blades. And for the record, we can't even see your "device". So how do you expect anyone to believe your outlandish claims, when only you know exactly what your thing may or may not be. How do I know it's not just a little electric motor back there lifting up the string. If you want people to listen, show them
Hi there, I'm sorry you think my litte experiment a waste of time cos the blades are not exactly right and the wind is not exactly right.That goes for my invention too you know.Who decided which turbine was the one to build anyway.All you have to do it make a prototype and see how much weight it picks up,story over.The one that picks up the most weight in the shortest time is the one to build,nothin else.Oh yea,they also need to build cheap, mend easy, and last for 100 yrs.Ok.
One more thing, sorry to nag, but to make a scaled experiment, there are certain ways of changing parameters in order to keep things "in scale". I don't know how much fluid dynamics background you have, but one thing that must stay constant in an experiment like this is called the Reynolds Number. So making the entire turbine smaller will change the Reynolds # unless other things like fluid velocity or viscosity are also adjusted. To me, it doesn't look like you did this, tell me if i'm wrong
Hi again, first of all I'm not showing you yet,not till I can get paid for my work.Second of all,I don't know about your reynolds # nor care.I am an engineer who has in the past physically repaired a number of these silly big monsters before they were 10 years old.Did you do the math on the opposing forces at work within this design.All the weight on the front bearing,impossible to refurb in situ,wind going faster at the top than the bottom causing drag,subsidy needed (continued)
A 30% efficient classic wind turbine would produce >1.7 watt/m^2 in a 5MPH (2.2 m/s) wind. I think your fan is blowing faster than that.
Your test of the classic wind turbine isn't valid. I can't say if your turbine is getting a fair test or not, it's numbers aren't that impressive. Sorry!
BTW, if your turbine has a lot of torque, you may be able to demonstrate it lifting much more weight in nearly the same time, which would show more power.
Every turbine has a peak power point (best torque and speed) to get the most power. You may not have found that point. You definitely don't have it for the classic turbine.
I know my prototype is cardboard but it is still a good test.I am an engineer and have repaired wind turbines,they cannot be repaired in situ they have to be dismantled and the repairs are not as original.I am just looking for some simple truths here.Why is my test of the classic turbine not valid.I thought it was a brilliantly simple idea.How can it not be valid.With the same size spindle 8mm and no gearing it has to be relevant.
I left you a longer private message with more detail, but the short answer is that torque is not power. Torque * speed is power. Your turbine has a lot of torque. The other may have more speed. If yours lifts 3KG in 30 seconds and the other lifts 0.3KG in 3 seconds, they are producing the same power.
Some turbines produce power mostly as speed, some as torque. Your test favors the turbine with more torque. I think the other would do better moving less weight more quickly.
I applaud you for actually making measurements because that's more than 90% of the wind turbine videos show.
However your experiment is flawed. You are measuring torque, not power and power is what matters. There are lots of things you could do to the classic windmill to make it lift more. Change the pitch on the blades, gear it down, etc.
Additionally your fan is not a good source of air since it's not as big as the area of the test turbine and it makes swirly air.
Hi,you saw an honest experiment with NO gearing.All weights were lifted direct drive by 8mm shafts both prototypes..Swirly wind makes NO difference to the BIG picture of 6 times more lift.I don,t have a wind tunnel so I just did my best to find the truth.How would you do it.Build a £20000 wind tunnel? I am showing you all the truth as best I can afford.
I give this "scientist" and excellent rating for stupidity. I really believe his grand daughter is doing the trick behind the cardboard shield...thanks for wasting my time.
it seems good, and i wish you success. i am hoping to be an operitive wind turbine installer. for government and domestic. but it looks like the laws of leverage would not support such a lift on stick or string. downward pull, circular winding, confused?? good luck
If you puplish your design/method on Youtube here there is no way they can steal it and get away with it once you know about it. You'll have proof that you published it here since it's public (not affiliated with your own website...but a publically accesable site like YouTube) and dated here on youtube. I believe the courts will trust this publication on youtube.
Remember, final rights go to the real true inventer and publisher of that, not one who can patent "formal publishing" things first, since anyone who overhead your conversations etc, can attempt to patent things. Even if you do patent something, its possible someone else will have design improvement patents.
I believe publishing your invention earlier than a patent (a form of publishing/acknowledgement of invention-inventor) has some signifigance. There is no law stating you much formally patent before publishing. Publishing before patenting though does leave open a door for others to try to copy your design and/or try to patent it themselves, however they will fail once the courts know you have publicly published your invention.
I'm sure you know that it's not who invented something first, it's who can DOCUMENT being first. Showing you machine on YouTube would certainly establish your primacy. Think about it, and talk to a patent attorney. Quickly.
There are several other wind power designs, not just the traditional fan design you have showed us here. the helical turbine readily comes to mind.
How does the helical wind generator do compared to your own patent pending device? I understand your concern, but if it is indeed patent pending, it should be OK to display it on YouTube.
If you have seen a real life turbine blade..!..?!..
You will know it all depends on the blade type, profile, length and work/hub height, all in the matter of torque..
just saying that those blades made of cardboard, is just as efficient as almost nothing...
so.. i think.. you can easily improve that "cardboard turbine"'s power, so it looks like the "new invented most efficient turbine in the world"... hope you get my idea.. peace :-)
yes i know, just build a small scale model yourself and do the maths lifting weights.you just need to purchase 2 pedestal fans.Blade profiles mean nothing as long as you have the approximate surface contact you can do crude calculations.Six times more will never be achived with fine tuning of the blades.I'm just trying to get to the truth so keep watching when i will show you much more.
I'M TOO OLD TO BE PLAYING TRICKS.When I get my patent sorted I will show you all so you can all build at home.I also have to re do this video with better sound.Keep watching and one day you will be amazed.This turbine can power the world.
This has been flagged as spam show
WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
Visit: windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
ZERO-NOISE from gears and generators since they are sealed underground.
SAVES THE BIRDS AND BATS since slow-moving.
DOES NOT OCCUPY A WIDER LANDSCAPE since the turbine can be very tall.
MAY BE LOWER-COST since it may use timber and other cheaper things.
ELUDES HURRICANE FORCE since the V-type folding blades automatically close.
NO FIRE since well-cooled.
HELPS WIND-ENERGY COMPANIES since it is FREE FOR ALL.
TheServiceWeb 1 month ago
sorry pal,get your facts right.No gears in both experiments.both lifts were using 8mm diameter spindle direct drive.you lose.
mooreandwright 3 months ago
Yes "cardboard" has been commercially viable for years. I could use the same wind mill that you said wouldn’t work and lift the same load you lifted with yours. I saw how slow it was lifting. It’s called gear reduction. Hell I could lift 10 cars with a hand crank if I gear it right. That doesn’t mean it’s efficient to do so.
Sorry, but you loose on this one.
brettray76 3 months ago
crazy man on line and his grandson behind the carboard good joke.!!
leoalegori 4 months ago
Look bollock brain,
If you and I were neibouring farmers in the aussie out back and needed to pump water from an underground lake,I would choose an IRON MAN WIND PUMP and you A VESTAS Type 3 Bladed scientifically designed aerofoil same dia. you would pump 90% less water than me because you only used 10% of the available sweep area.Your cattle would die,your kids and you to,and I'd be shagging your wife in exchange for a glass of water.Law of the jungle bird brain.R.I.P.
mooreandwright 6 months ago
Hi Shiteforbrains,take a look at " Iron man windmills" web site.Try telling them to change their multiple blade design to 3 mickey mousy turbine blades and see what they say.They don't even use the middle 33% because that part does F!*^k all.Three of your type blades would pump just 10% of water if the same diameter of construction was used,any twat can see that.Go on,contact them with your f*^!king brainless ideas.They'll tell you to F*^!k off.
mooreandwright 6 months ago
@mooreandwright I won't hold my breath waiting for your miracle to take the market by storm. As for who has shiteforbrains, That is plainly evident in your video. You appear to be trying to prove a point, which you will never do with the worst science I have ever seen. Some will view your bonehead test as fact(why I comented). I draw two conclusions from your video. 1. You are delibertly trying to mislead. 2. You really don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate. Both are sad!
rronmar 6 months ago
@mooreandwright I won't hold my breath waiting for your miracle to take the market by storm. As for who has shietforbrains, That is plainly evident in your video. You appear to be trying to prove a point, which you will never do with the worst science I have ever seen. Some will view your bonehead test as fact(why I comented). I draw two conclusions from your video. 1.You are delibertly trying to mislead. 2. You really don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate. Both are sad!
rronmar 6 months ago
Listen bonehead,if you built a wind turbine to pump water and used that stupid three airfoil design you would pump f all,thats why they use 20 or more flat metal or wooden blades in the outback of USA and aussieland.See the film Austrailia with Nicole Kidman.They couldn't afford to f*!^ about with"PROPER" airfoils you numbskull.
mooreandwright 6 months ago
@mooreandwright And who builds with flat plates today? Your demonstration is flawed because it compares apples to oranges. You are feeding a 1009 sq/in "collector" with around a 300 sq/in? "pulsed" and turbulent windsource and calling it no good, yet feeding your 430 sq/in wonder with the same 300 sq/in source and are amazed at it's performance. Obviously your wonder has a bunch of blades to catch the pulsed input better and is better sized to the source. sorry, still piss poor science
rronmar 6 months ago
@mooreandwright And to add, they built with falt plates back when because they didn't know any better. As early as the 1920's, bout the time metal blades came on the scene, you start to see windmills showing up with a twisted shape to better turn wind into torque. You say your 1:50 3 blade is a scale model. That sir is not true! IT lacks a proper scale airfoil. Again piss poor science!
rronmar 6 months ago
@mooreandwright Sorry, I misunderstood and thought you said 1009, not 1500 sq/in for the 3 blade ACA. Even more horribly missmatched from the source. A helicopter gets most lift from it's blade tips. A windmill develops most of it's torque from its blade tips. No wind even blows there in your demo. Your model has a large plate in the center where a good portion of the air is directed. It should have blade roots and a smooth cone spinner. Very unfair comparison, and yet again piss poor science
rronmar 6 months ago
It is clearly evident that the visible wind turbine model, besides being inaccurate because it does not have a twisted/washed out airfoil, has a large collection area being powered by a narrow column wind source fan. It is clear that the hidden model IS optimized for the narrow colum windsource. With a proper airfoil(as they are really built) and both put out in an open breeze, your hidden model would fall on it's face in terms of output. said best 5 months ago. You sir... are an idiot!
rronmar 6 months ago
hi,
it's not noise that matters,the hydro electric generators make far more noise but nobady complains.My generators obviously need to be in the middle of nowhere.
mooreandwright 8 months ago
In the UK it's noise that matters. If you could generate the same power as a conventional design but with half the noise you might be onto a winner. But remember Betz law applies.
ColinWatters 8 months ago
If you decided to hide what you got....you should not be in you tube....as a matter of fact you have a better place to hide your shit
marc1bb 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tony with Hurricane Wind Power Wind Turbine Technologies LLC, Hurricane Perfect Storm™ 2kW Permanent Magnet Alternator Quad Output™ Made in USA
CarlVanDoren 9 months ago
In conventional wind turbines there is a trade-off between torque on one hand and rotational speed on the other. If the goal is to produce electricity it is far more important to get the generator to rotate as fast as possible than to get maximum torque. Thats why the design trend has gone from many blades (i.e. wind wheels used to pump water) to few blades.
The reason three blades are chosen before one or two blades is mainly due to stability.
ab22aq22 10 months ago
@ab22aq22
hi,look gears are what make the generator go faster not the blade speed.The more torque you create the faster the gen will go when geared up.My design will out torque any conventional by 6 to one.Allso my design will out live them by 10 to one with only an occasional simple bearing change.My design is 6 times cheaper to build,zero maintainence,no silly serviice contract.I'LL SHOW YOU ALL SOON.
mooreandwright 10 months ago
@mooreandwright
the more blades a mill has the more power it will produce but as each blade passes through the air it creates a wake that interferes with the one following therefore reducing the overall efficiency. 5 blades is the best design as it creates the most power with the least loss in power. You can have as many blades as you want but if I made one with 5 it would be better all round than yours.
sgtelzilcho 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ab22aq22 What an absolute WANKER
quintellio 8 months ago
For those of you who don't know, the vetical wind turbine was invented and documented by an Arab scientist several hundred years ago and was employed to grind grains into flour. Oddly enough, even though its design is well documented, those built today are not as powerful, usually because they all miss an important design feature. In order for vertical turbines to be efficient, they need to be enclosed in a housing designed to channel airflow into the impellers at a correct deflection angle.
yosecretsquirrel 1 year ago
you sir.... are an idiot!
153wellsst 1 year ago
If you are serious file a patent and show it. G-d forbid, but what if you had the world's energy solution and were in an auto accident!
andyinvietnam 1 year ago
Boooooooooooooo!
Kleanmonkey 1 year ago
what a waste of time; you tube is filled with shit like this . they should be wiped and banned
itsandbits1 1 year ago
As Spikeychops says, maybe you should share the design if it will save the world. Your initial demonstration is rubbish anyway. Are you aware of the way in which conventional HAWTs work? You model made from cardboard, with a house fan blowing on it is hardly representative or efficient. Go back to making precision measuring equipment.
robertsulley 1 year ago
So, almost two years down the road and are the orders flying in (no pun)?
Have you been offered millions of £'s for your design?
I seriously doubt it. If you truly have discovered an ultra efficient design, share it man! Open source the design, get a Paypal account and ask for donations if money's your thing. You'll probably end up with more than if you sold it. OK, a LOT won't pay a penny, but a LOT will. Think of the people, think of the planet, not just your bank account mate. Up to you
spikeychops 1 year ago
Flawed in so many ways...
Some one waste your time building a tiny "conventional" model with a gear that lifts 100kg.
Torque != power
TalpaDK 1 year ago
funny... I did not SEE your device lift anything.
drwizbang 1 year ago
Thats cool
UJSWnews 1 year ago
I call BULLSHIT!!!
YoLninYo 1 year ago
It's a shame that we as people in a monetary based systm must feel like hiding our ideas. I like the resource-based economy idea. Watch TED Talks and/or listen to people like Jacque Fresco . It is time to wake up. Sharing IS caring. There is a difference between a parasite and an organism And We on this planet must learn to not live on it, but with it. Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong. Thanx
derman077 1 year ago
What device? The piece of timber with sugar bags?
So what is behind the magic timber curtain?
Pajes01 1 year ago
Good work mate. Great vid :)
Pajes01 1 year ago
How are you lifting the bags of sugar? (In other words, how would it be attached to the prototype).
The only thing that could be associated with the lifting of the sugar is the small hole with that tube of wire poking through (Just a little observation, but I think that poked through the hole half way through the video because I cant see it until 1:37 but I can see it after 1:44 when he's switching to the prototype).
Does anyone agree with me about this observation?
Ben31337l 1 year ago
Hmm..the 'experiment' is flawed from it's conception, up to and including this 'Presentation', which, BTW, screams either scam or copyright fear garnished with greed. At best 'your' design is a more efficient squirrel cage which in fact has been proven more efficient than props, but compared to the supply fan's ACA efficiency vs. your designs', if you argue your's is more, keep it behind the partion and re-route the collected air to the rear of the supply. You might want to do some research...?
THROWSOMETHING501 2 years ago
wind collecter ? well a sail has been said to collect the wind a bucket collecets water and a copasitor collecets energey we shaer to help each other so we are helping what are you up to are you a comidian or a money hungrey genues ither way i am done with you se your stuff at wall mart genues or in the funnys
zuseable 2 years ago
@zuseable Go back to school, learn to spell or at least operate a spellchecker. Then and only then should you try to appear intelligent or witty.
yosecretsquirrel 1 year ago
can't tell anything if u your design really works, when u hide your design behind cardboard :)
If you really have invented something new and u scared someone will steal your desing, file a patent.
Hershal13 2 years ago
lol wtf... show us how it works and if it works you will get your money and orders :| :| but this is probably fake and gay D
wzupy 2 years ago
Hi, Look, I have to go to work to support my Mortgage so I can,t answer too many questions.One day soon I will pull the sheet down and show you ALL how stupid the propellors are at collecting wind.Don't you see,they are PROPELLORS NOT COLLECTORS.
mooreandwright 2 years ago
What are you wating for ?
wzupy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OK. I'm American and will do the math as you asked. It looks like you raised 6.6 pounds 0.5 feet in 30 seconds. That is 6.6ft lb/min. Converting to Watts that is equal to 0.149 Watts. You were blowing at 50 Watts so your efficiency is 0.149/50 =0.3% .
A typical small 3 blade generator is 18-25% efficient and the large, variable pitch turbines around the world are approaching the Betz limit of 56% at speed.
Now it is your turn to do the math.
Lupansan 2 years ago
Comment removed
Lupansan 2 years ago
Come on dude, why would you post this causing arguement about what wind turbine is better and YOU CANT SHOW WHAT IS IS YOU"MADE"??? how is this EVEN RELIVENT???????? take this post down or show whats behind the curtin!!!
M1American 2 years ago
good experiment but it was inconclusive. You may have had a cordless drill doing the work behind the cardboard. Too bad. I would love to see your craftsmanship and the turbine you have created. Good luck
chrisnotap 2 years ago
one of the 5 worst videos I have seen on youtube. Your an engineer? Really? And you don't understand the relationship between torque, speed, and power?
Your poised to save the world.
pscartozzi 2 years ago
Gosh, I started watching with an open mind: now I feel swindled by this silly "demonstration".
What a lot of hot wind...........useless nonsense
junkduma 2 years ago
You didn't show us anything !! Thanks for wasting 4:58 minutes of our time!
STARFIRESOLAR 2 years ago
it's not spinning as fast because the fan cant match the amount of power the wind has, out side the wind is much faster and stronger.
14400volts 2 years ago
wow that was a waste of time for someone looking for information.;..
spopajr 2 years ago 7
Well I can't see the size and wind area of yours compared to your model standard turbine. However, your standard turbine does not have the same type of airfoils as a modern engineered turbine and you really would have a hard time beating those. Sure it's worth a try but trust me you likely won't, there is a lot more to the picture than meets the eye when looking a those monsters. They are highly engineered and the airfoils are complex not flat. It takes calculus to really do the math on those.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
wow that is some good cardboard! where can i get some?
hattrick1974tube 2 years ago
There is nothing in this video that would convince anyone that you have come up with anything new at all. Half of your experiment is "hidden". You really don't expect anyone to take it seriously do you? If It's real show it. If it really works, sell it. There are plenty of claims out there of revolutionary inventions. If it works build a prototype and prove it...By generating real usable power. You have been challenged. Prove us doubters wrong.
Iamthegreenguy 2 years ago 6
i think you two are crazy and are wasting your time writting what to do or show the spooky secret machine , maby moore is doing something well and honorable or maby her grand son is behind the wall we don´t know but really make me laugh
moreno747 2 years ago
I'll freely admit to being the fool. I just wasted nearly 5 minutes of my time watching a reading demonstration.
777strongcoffee 2 years ago
Did anyone touch on the point that this was done in a room where the air movement was totally controlled, not to mention how much space is beside his "new" model, and what is the mechanical advantage of what ever is tied to the weight?
bderoche 2 years ago
The test is a perfect amateur method of testing prototype turbine designs for efficiency.they can be tested outside in real wind if you like.The weights aren't doing work the are being lifted by wind power?
mooreandwright 2 years ago
Hi, please understand, when you are looking for tiny improvements in designs you may have to consider these equasions but when you are dealing with designs that are so flawed in their it basic design it doesnt need rocket science or reynolds # to test one model against another.If my design was just twice as efficient as another then I would need to look at these flawed experiments,but my design is so superior in performance in this flawed test that nitpicking the test is irrellevant.
mooreandwright 2 years ago
So what you need to do is look at Betz limit. It's the theoretical maximum amount of energy you can extract from the wind. The exact value is 16/27 (0.5926) or 59.26%. Modern turbines can get about 45 %, maybe 50% for big ones offshore. So a factor of two increase in efficiency will be impossible, much less any more. Here is my guess. Your "conventional" turbine model is maybe 5-10 % efficient. So compared to that, your design could be 2 or 3 times efficient but still less than modern turbines
Porterjebazillanator 1 year ago
@Porterjebazillanator hi
mooreandwright 1 year ago
@Porterjebazillanator Hi there
mooreandwright 1 year ago
@Porterjebazillanator Hi, i am trying to reply but this will not send.
mooreandwright 1 year ago
@Porterjebazillanator
hi,are you saying that modern turbines collect 45% of total sweep area or blade surface area which is only one third of that figure.
mooreandwright 1 year ago
But my main point is that your "invention" or whatever you want to call it is behind a barrier, thus, I cannot see what "it" is. Who is to say that it isn't just a trick or something. Post a video of the mechanism or device where we can actually see it in action, not just a mysterious device with a little axle poking out through some cardboard. So show me the device without the barrier, and show us all exactly what it does, then I will believe you have something, if it holds up to your claims.
Porterjebazillanator 2 years ago 4
at every level,the mere fact that they can be stopped at the hub in high wind proves they are pathetic,you would have to blow my design up to stop it in high wind.Of course,when we repair these things at budget prices to get them up and running again we only guarantee such repairs for 12 months.We're not running a charity.Full and proper repairs would cost a fortune so they get the minimum as per customers request.
They already cost a fortune to dismantle so nothing left for a good repair.
mooreandwright 2 years ago
I am not arguing with you about economics or maintenance incurred by one design over the other. You need to listen. My point is that your test is flawed, so drawing conclusions from it will by default be flawed. So claiming your design is better due to its performance in a flawed test is asinine. On a side note, if you really are an engineer (other than electrical maybe) you should have at least heard of Reynolds #. It is a fundamental in fluid flow that any good engineer should know about.
Porterjebazillanator 2 years ago
@Porterjebazillanator hi
mooreandwright 1 year ago
For one thing, those blades are not at the correct pitch or shape to be compared to a conventional turbine. Also, your little fan is not delivering its airflow to the entire area of the blades. And for the record, we can't even see your "device". So how do you expect anyone to believe your outlandish claims, when only you know exactly what your thing may or may not be. How do I know it's not just a little electric motor back there lifting up the string. If you want people to listen, show them
Porterjebazillanator 2 years ago
Hi there, I'm sorry you think my litte experiment a waste of time cos the blades are not exactly right and the wind is not exactly right.That goes for my invention too you know.Who decided which turbine was the one to build anyway.All you have to do it make a prototype and see how much weight it picks up,story over.The one that picks up the most weight in the shortest time is the one to build,nothin else.Oh yea,they also need to build cheap, mend easy, and last for 100 yrs.Ok.
mooreandwright 2 years ago
One more thing, sorry to nag, but to make a scaled experiment, there are certain ways of changing parameters in order to keep things "in scale". I don't know how much fluid dynamics background you have, but one thing that must stay constant in an experiment like this is called the Reynolds Number. So making the entire turbine smaller will change the Reynolds # unless other things like fluid velocity or viscosity are also adjusted. To me, it doesn't look like you did this, tell me if i'm wrong
Porterjebazillanator 2 years ago
Hi again, first of all I'm not showing you yet,not till I can get paid for my work.Second of all,I don't know about your reynolds # nor care.I am an engineer who has in the past physically repaired a number of these silly big monsters before they were 10 years old.Did you do the math on the opposing forces at work within this design.All the weight on the front bearing,impossible to refurb in situ,wind going faster at the top than the bottom causing drag,subsidy needed (continued)
mooreandwright 2 years ago
I see problems with the numbers... But I'm no Math guru.
Subscribed out of sheer curiosity. can't wait to see it, so get it patented or what ever.
WildoTheRubberFist 2 years ago
America here doing the math...
3KG lifted 10cm = 2.94 J of energy
done over 32 seconds = 92 milliwatts of power
430 in^2 = .277 m^2 of collection area
Power per area of your turbine = 0.33 W/m^2
A 30% efficient classic wind turbine would produce >1.7 watt/m^2 in a 5MPH (2.2 m/s) wind. I think your fan is blowing faster than that.
Your test of the classic wind turbine isn't valid. I can't say if your turbine is getting a fair test or not, it's numbers aren't that impressive. Sorry!
sjh7132 2 years ago
BTW, if your turbine has a lot of torque, you may be able to demonstrate it lifting much more weight in nearly the same time, which would show more power.
Every turbine has a peak power point (best torque and speed) to get the most power. You may not have found that point. You definitely don't have it for the classic turbine.
sjh7132 2 years ago
Hi there, I like you,you have quality answers.
I know my prototype is cardboard but it is still a good test.I am an engineer and have repaired wind turbines,they cannot be repaired in situ they have to be dismantled and the repairs are not as original.I am just looking for some simple truths here.Why is my test of the classic turbine not valid.I thought it was a brilliantly simple idea.How can it not be valid.With the same size spindle 8mm and no gearing it has to be relevant.
mooreandwright 2 years ago
I left you a longer private message with more detail, but the short answer is that torque is not power. Torque * speed is power. Your turbine has a lot of torque. The other may have more speed. If yours lifts 3KG in 30 seconds and the other lifts 0.3KG in 3 seconds, they are producing the same power.
Some turbines produce power mostly as speed, some as torque. Your test favors the turbine with more torque. I think the other would do better moving less weight more quickly.
sjh7132 2 years ago
Anyway, thanks for your interest.I might show you the prototype someday.Vestas turbines closed in the UK today.YIPPEE, no more subsidies for them.
regards
mooreandwright
mooreandwright 2 years ago
Sorry you think that.I hope your grandkids survive with candles for heat and light. cos wind turbines won't save them.
mooreandwright 2 years ago
I applaud you for actually making measurements because that's more than 90% of the wind turbine videos show.
However your experiment is flawed. You are measuring torque, not power and power is what matters. There are lots of things you could do to the classic windmill to make it lift more. Change the pitch on the blades, gear it down, etc.
Additionally your fan is not a good source of air since it's not as big as the area of the test turbine and it makes swirly air.
sjh7132 2 years ago
Hi,you saw an honest experiment with NO gearing.All weights were lifted direct drive by 8mm shafts both prototypes..Swirly wind makes NO difference to the BIG picture of 6 times more lift.I don,t have a wind tunnel so I just did my best to find the truth.How would you do it.Build a £20000 wind tunnel? I am showing you all the truth as best I can afford.
mooreandwright 2 years ago
I give this "scientist" and excellent rating for stupidity. I really believe his grand daughter is doing the trick behind the cardboard shield...thanks for wasting my time.
ObamaTaliban 2 years ago
Hi, you were seeing the truth in the pictures,no grand kids, just a great turbine kept secret.Can't show anybody yet.But I will soon,keep watching.
mooreandwright 2 years ago
it seems good, and i wish you success. i am hoping to be an operitive wind turbine installer. for government and domestic. but it looks like the laws of leverage would not support such a lift on stick or string. downward pull, circular winding, confused?? good luck
dazzmazzz 3 years ago
If you puplish your design/method on Youtube here there is no way they can steal it and get away with it once you know about it. You'll have proof that you published it here since it's public (not affiliated with your own website...but a publically accesable site like YouTube) and dated here on youtube. I believe the courts will trust this publication on youtube.
trailbuddi 3 years ago
Remember, final rights go to the real true inventer and publisher of that, not one who can patent "formal publishing" things first, since anyone who overhead your conversations etc, can attempt to patent things. Even if you do patent something, its possible someone else will have design improvement patents.
trailbuddi 3 years ago
Is it a VAWT?
trailbuddi 3 years ago
NO but it could be either.
mooreandwright 2 years ago
Patent wise I was curious whether that was the case. I saw about the B&D 'workmate' inventer he received huge sums when U.S.and Far East copied it.
wind4watts 2 years ago
I believe publishing your invention earlier than a patent (a form of publishing/acknowledgement of invention-inventor) has some signifigance. There is no law stating you much formally patent before publishing. Publishing before patenting though does leave open a door for others to try to copy your design and/or try to patent it themselves, however they will fail once the courts know you have publicly published your invention.
trailkeeper 2 years ago
the script is a bit rubbish and card o gen is rubbish too my owd.
sparkyindahouse 3 years ago
not showing what you have leads me to disbaleaf. a friend could have raising the bags as far as i know
bconov 3 years ago
I'm sure you know that it's not who invented something first, it's who can DOCUMENT being first. Showing you machine on YouTube would certainly establish your primacy. Think about it, and talk to a patent attorney. Quickly.
WindEnergy 3 years ago
Comment removed
BlackhawkWindEnergy 3 years ago
Comment removed
BlackhawkWindEnergy 3 years ago
There are several other wind power designs, not just the traditional fan design you have showed us here. the helical turbine readily comes to mind.
How does the helical wind generator do compared to your own patent pending device? I understand your concern, but if it is indeed patent pending, it should be OK to display it on YouTube.
tohobbes 3 years ago
hi,it's not patent pending as i have no finance for this so i have to keep secret.ok.
mooreandwright 3 years ago
Get that patent, b/c I want to see whats going on behind the curtains. Good luck.
twltch 3 years ago
it stops moving? that can't be good...
mastersproject 3 years ago
just a thougt...
If you have seen a real life turbine blade..!..?!..
You will know it all depends on the blade type, profile, length and work/hub height, all in the matter of torque..
just saying that those blades made of cardboard, is just as efficient as almost nothing...
so.. i think.. you can easily improve that "cardboard turbine"'s power, so it looks like the "new invented most efficient turbine in the world"... hope you get my idea.. peace :-)
/Jacob\
atvdk 3 years ago
yes i know, just build a small scale model yourself and do the maths lifting weights.you just need to purchase 2 pedestal fans.Blade profiles mean nothing as long as you have the approximate surface contact you can do crude calculations.Six times more will never be achived with fine tuning of the blades.I'm just trying to get to the truth so keep watching when i will show you much more.
mooreandwright 3 years ago
hi, my turbine is cardboard too so it's a level playing field and no less accurate
mooreandwright 3 years ago
We cant see anything, maybe you are switching some motor on, to push your weight, maybe maybe
Energermany 3 years ago
I'M TOO OLD TO BE PLAYING TRICKS.When I get my patent sorted I will show you all so you can all build at home.I also have to re do this video with better sound.Keep watching and one day you will be amazed.This turbine can power the world.
mooreandwright 3 years ago
Hmm, sure its possible, but why not showing it yet.
Have you the money for a patent, and then sell this stuff and get rich?
The idea and what is coming out, is always the same, commerce rules the world.
I dont say that you fake, but why you representating a cardbox that lifts sugar?
Sorry, but better show nothing and wait till you have your patent, then show all, but so not only for me its hard to believe.
Best regards stefan
Energermany 3 years ago
Ahh you've got tower envy LOL !!!
tsport100 3 years ago