New Wind Turbine FloDesign

[willettgarrett2]

That's so COOL!

[johnsaintwillie]

We used to have two windmills on the farm but we didn't have enough wind for both of them and had to take one down. :)

[Gautam6396]

@johnsaintwillie I need to write a report on this. Can u help me or guide me.

[TOMHBOMB1963]

this is so hot, viktor schauberger would be so pelased that other people have seen the power of the vortex. this is thinking well outside the square and should be applauded. I did lot sof units about fluid dynamics is 25 years ago at uni and well sometimes our teaching institutions "blinker us" and dont helps us see outside the square.

Dont believe all you are taught is right.

[SvenSkiS06]

Power generated by the wind can be calculated by : air density * swept area (circular area created by the rotating blades) * wind velocity cubed. A wind turbine with many blades is better at picking up energy from slower wind speeds, which has less potential energy (remember the velocity cubed part?).

ALSO, for those of you talking about efficiency. The Betz Limit (theoretical limit of wind energy capture) is around 59.3%. You can't pull more more than that.

I'm learning about this currently.

[ThinkStage]

Very cool

To see more innovative videos like this or want to share your own ideas visit ThinkStageDOTcom

[sirtom68]

Interesting. Would love to see a small scale model in comparison with a traditional prop and a VAWT turbine with the same size generators.

[owfped]

My view is that this type of design will not offer large area because this design is so bulky. Wind is only 1/1000 density of liquid, such as water, so area is critical. So what is the point to build this type of turbine if you can not make it large? What is the cost difference when you build a product like this compare with a normal three blades?

[695Maverick1]

From what I can tell, they are using high-speed turbulent flow to create an area of low pressure behind the turbine, helping to draw air through the turbine. I'm not sure how well it works, but the principle is cool.

[owfped]

E = 0.5 * m * V^2 = 0.5 * r * S * V * V^2 = 0.5 *r * S * V^3, where r is the density of air, S is the turbine sectional area, i.e., the size of the turbine against the wind, V is the speed of V.

This is a simple math and physice. You need large area of wind energy harvesting to do the work. This design will not have much chance of building a large area for obvious reason.

Funny though they seems to have received $8.3 million from ARPA-E.

[pytoche]

@owfped is also known that Propellers with 3 blades are less efficient than Those who has 2 blades and propellers with 5 blades or more are just as efficient as 60 - 50%.... -> more blades means less efficiency.

[owfped]

@pytoche A 100% efficiency with small area means the overall output is samll anyway. For example, even if this design has 100% efficiency, the design limit its area to say 1000 m^2 while 3 blades can do 15000m^2 with 50% efficiency, which one can do the job requires large output of electrcity?

I don't think the technology shown in this video can achieve 100%, neither the wind energy harvest erea can make larger than 3 blades. Anyway, I am not in favour of horrizontal 3 blade turbine at all.

[pytoche]

@owfped i an not in favour of that 3 blade.. i am only saying that this new design is not better than the conventional design because they use a lot of blades... each additional blade decreade the efficiency... in fact they just took the idea from an axial turbine from a jet engine.

[owfped]

@pytoche same, same. Point taken.

[joekid842]

I think your mixing up different physical concepts, where the standard prop design acts as more of a wind blocker, the design proposed here shows a modified venturi intake which utilizes pressure differences that accelerate the air moving through the turbine also known as amplifying (similar to the dyson fan but in reverse). Diffusers actually become less efficient as their area increases (due to surface losses) but can be optimized based on the properties of the medium that travel through it.

[Gautam6396]

@joekid842 I need to write a report on this. Can u help me or guide me.

[Godarth]

Really Impressive!!!! This concept is real now. Just look for Wind Tamer model.

But your modifications is really amazing.

PS.: DOnt feed the trolls!!! Dont answer stuped people. Thumbs up for this!!!!!

[kirbycraig]

Wow!

Why not make your fraud seem to make sense at least. Most frauds work best if they are closer to something that's possible.

If you were magic enough to cheat physics, you could magic up a better fraud.

Has anyone fallen for it yet? Try claiming you get 0.3% better than everyone else but don't claim such stupid figures if you want anyone to fall for your scam.

Anyone who might fall for this lost all their money ages ago.

Your scam is stupid.

Cool video though. You could get real work

[MrRobbydog]

FloDesign said it closed a $34.5 million Series B funding round in December. The backers include California-based Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers—the firm that supplied most of FloDesign’s Series A round—as well as three new investors, Goldman Sachs, Technology Partners, and VantagePoint Venture Partners. The latest round brings FloDesign’s total funding to about $40 million, not counting an $8.3 million Department of Energy grant awarded to the company last fall.

[mciceteade]

you must be smarter than the people who spend 40 mil

[luidavinci]

I love this. I would love to learn how to make and install these turbines.

[wattiewattie1]

Faster spin = faster bearing wear

[aserath01]

OMG fucking awesome!

[JohnCBriggs]

This really looks like an interesting design and I hope it progresses well into the testing phase. But the marketing people should check their script a little more closely. They say that traditional turbines extract 50% of the potential energy of the wind, but FloDesign extracts 3 to 4 times as much. Well by my calculation that is 150% to 200% of the wind energy. Aside from being impossible it is well about the 59% Betz limit.

[bornlikethis38]

@JohnCBriggs the vortex it produces multiplies the amount of potential energy extracted by the wind like a tesla coil does for electricity.

[JohnCBriggs]

@bornlikethis38 Nothing multiplies the amount of energy available in a system. It is a violation of the law of conservation of energy. Perhaps their design is more efficient (perhaps not) but in any case, it is not 150% to 200% efficient. I am sure they know that but the marketing guys got carried away.

[bornlikethis38]

@JohnCBriggs Creating a vortex multiplies the power output because it increases the wind pressure inside the turbine like a tesla coil takes 120 volts and turns into 50,000 volts by going from a large coil to small coil.

[JohnCBriggs]

@bornlikethis38 Let's see if I can explain this in 484 characters. System can multiply force (like a seesaw), or voltage (like a transformer) or pressure (apparently with this wind turbine. But something is always lost, like distance (seesaw), or current (like a transformer), or flow rate (wind turbine). This is because energy (and power) must be conserved. So this wind turbine does NOT multiply power output. Nothing does.

[bornlikethis38]

@JohnCBriggs ultimately it does provide more power, because the turbine multiplies the work powered by the energy in the wind. your disputing their number saying they get 4 times the amount of electricity than a conventional massive inefficient turbine, i don't dispute that, i'll trust they weren't lying

[JohnCBriggs]

@bornlikethis38 Let's start with the basics. The power in wind = 1/2 density *Area*Velocity^3. That is all the power available. In you want more power the only thing that can be changed is the swept area of the windmill blades. The density of the air or velocity of the wind cannot be changed. So the claim is that conventional wind turbines are 50% efficient. So the power extracted is 0.25*density*area*velocity^3. The power from the flodesign...

[JohnCBriggs]

@JohnCBriggs is supposed to be 4X the conventional wind turbine This is 1.0*density*area*velocity^3. This is twice the energy that is available in the wind. Where did the energy come from? No matter how cleaver the design, no matter what marketing spin, nothing exceeds 100% efficiency. It does not matter what is in the box. The amount of power exiting the box (AC electricity) cannot exceed the amount of power entering the box (wind power).

[sjh7132]

@bornlikethis38

Betz limit is 59% so that's the best they can do. I don't believe that any large commercial turbine is less efficient than 15%. (probably more like 40%). Therefore I don't buy the 4x efficiency number.

[bornlikethis38]

@sjh7132 "According to the company, this wind turbine will generate power at half the cost of conventional wind turbines thanks to its jet engine technology that overcomes the Betz limit for turbines. Regular wind turbines can capture 59.3 percent from wind’s energy, and this percentage was called the Betz limit. The problem is that almost half of the wind which approaches a turbine is deflected around the blades, not through them which means that almost half of the potential energy is lost."

[sjh7132]

@bornlikethis38

That is misleading information from the company. When figuring the area of a turbine you should also include the shroud, in that case they won't break Betz. It's pretty much the same as having larger blades. But if their cost is lower per watt produced that's really all that matters. It would be interesting to see if it's true.

[MegaWind2010]

@sjh7132 With all due respect I dont think you know what you are talking about. you have read about Betz without knowing what it means and what it limitations are. I am glad a 1950's theory has still kept your imagination in 1950s.

[sjh7132]

@MegaWind2010 Betz law is based on nothing more than the fact that if you take too much energy out of the air, you can't get the air out of the way quickly enough to get new air in. No turbine shape is going to get you around that problem and the derivation assumes no specific shape or type of turbine. Research it, then tell me that I don't know it. Do you ignore gravity because that law came about long ago?

Companies who claim to break Betz shouldn't be trusted.

[bornlikethis38]

@sjh7132 I'll let you pick the Flodesigns mathematics by directing you to a pdf written by M. J. Werle, who works at Flodesign Inc.

google "flodesign wind turbine betz" and click the pdf.

[sjh7132]

@bornlikethis38

I'll look at it. This video is a year old. Surely they have a model in a wind tunnel that can demonstrate they can break Betz by now. Please forward me to that data also.

[sjh7132]

@bornlikethis38

Using your search terms I can only find lots of propaganda, and no technical papers with any meat to them. Please PM me a link to the write up you were thinking about.



[danie1murphy]

@sjh7132 Normal turbines extract 50%, this turbine extracts

3 to 4 times as much. Give us a break!

[sjh7132]

@MegaWind2010

By the way Betz came up with this theory in 1919. Why do you call it a 1950's theory?

[Br1ckInTh3W4LL]

@JohnCBriggs The turbine is obviously not over-unity, perhaps they're using some sort or geometric sequence 4x 50% == (50% + 25% + 12.5% + 6.25% = 93.75%) to calculate efficiency. wikipedia states: "Large modern water turbines operate at mechanical efficiencies greater than 90%", and such water turbines are similar in design to the flowdesigns turbine, so perhaps this is what they mean.

[JohnCBriggs]

@Br1ckInTh3W4LL Thanks for trying to clarify the claim. While we are looking up things in Wikipedia, let me add in this one. "According to Betz's law, no turbine can capture more than 59.3 percent of the kinetic energy in wind."

[arkivx1]

@JohnCBriggs According to Betzs law, no turbine can capture more than 59.3 percent of the kinetic energy in wind. In tests, WindTamer a second company claim to have turbines that do better than the 59.3 percent limit.

[JohnCBriggs]

@arkivx1 OK here is the WindTamer quote "even exceeding the theoretical limit of efficiency of extracting power from the wind, the so called Betz limit of 59.3%, based on the swept area of the rotor." The last part is the key "Swept area of the rotor". They are applying the limit incorrectly. They need to apply the area of the duct, not the rotor. The whole argument is a little strange. Does the customer care if they have a 16 foot duct or 16 foot rotor?

[JohnCBriggs]

@arkivx1 WindTamer does supply data. Using their data and the duct diameter (16 feet) rather than the rotor diameter (8 feet), I compute the efficiency at about 18%. This is typical for wind turbines of that size.  If you compute using the rotor diameter, the pseudo-efficiency is 70%. But this is misleading. No one doubts that a duct works. The question is, is it better to purchase a huge duct or standard turbine if the efficiencies are similar.

[bornlikethis38]

@arkivx1 "According to the company, this wind turbine will generate power at half the cost of conventional wind turbines thanks to its jet engine technology that overcomes the Betz limit for turbines. Regular wind turbines can capture 59.3 percent from wind’s energy, and this percentage was called the Betz limit. The problem is that almost half of the wind which approaches a turbine is deflected around the blades, not through them which means that almost half of the potential energy is lost."

[Struckgold]

When does it become reality?

[biodcel]

@Struckgold - Never...its all hype, when a real one not a model is built then we'll see...

[PATKO1]

exellent presentation and good design - how big of a turbine is needed for 10 kw.