Have You ever looked at how much space NPP's really use? It is appalling how much area is needed for the cooling towers alone. And then some radioactivity. This puppy here can go where nobody else wants to be. One of those would give the Big Island all the energy it ever needs. Put it right where the military is on top of saddle road. No more diesel, no more geo-thermal, no more batteries. But first we have to make it through 2012...
@braedencowbrough Your statement is CONTRADICTORY. If Thorium plants have operated successfully why is there NOT ONE IN OPERATION RIGHT NOW!
Thorium is as common as lead but has no fissioning power on it's own and so requires uranium or worse still deadly plutonium to fission. That way you end up with a double whammy as thorium wastes remain radio-active for millions of years! Please note that Kakrapur1 in India is not working now and govt officials are minting money in so called research!
A thought - instead of running on tons of rare earth magnets for the bearings, use a film of air - easy, cheap and if you ever need to brake the turbine, slow down the air flow till the turbine comes to rest. Plywood brake pads would work well.
@unamxify todate there is not a single thorium reactor working in the WHOLE WORLD. The talk is all hocus pocus as thorium salts keep eroding the metal pipes. U.S. tried it in the 60s, India has tried it twice and had to shut down twice and keeps promising a future date...there is right now an offshore hexagonal placed wind turbine energy available that can produce as much electricity as a nuclear power plant.It's bloody expensive but still cheaper than nuclear and it's radiation free!
@angelialvares Thorium power plants have operated successfully... Currently need more research into them, but they are a reality. What you are confusing yourself with is that the molten salt reactors are not using a thorium salt.... but a salt as a coolant/heating fluid to transfer energy. Thorium is kept as the metal and is hit with slow neutrons to turn into U233 to fission. Yes I love wind power too, but there also needs to be redundancies for it.
@unamxify todate there is not a single thorium reactor working in the WHOLE WORLD. The talk is all hocus pocus as thorium salts keep eroding the metal pipes. U.S. tried it in the 60s, India has tried it twice and had to shut down twice and keeps promising a future date...there is right now an offshore hexagonal placed wind turbine energy available that can produce as much electricity as a nuclear power plant.It's bloody expensive but still cheaper than nuclear and it's radiation free!
u people are fools. thorium reactors, nuclear reactors, panties, phssshaw. fools we dont need any of that. they should be banned. all we need are dilithum crystals. once we can figure out how to safely harness that power. we would even reach distant stars since it can power warp drives. and in space.there is no gravity so skirts would float up. then they can enact a law. women in space can only wear sun dresses for their safety. MUhahahahaha u fools, ive already thought of everything. Muhahaha
Maglev costs far less than nuclear, takes far less space, costs thousands of times less to maintain and operate.. and is much safer. They don't even have safe permanent storage for nuclear waste yet.
Why do you think industries are pushing nuclear so hard? Because they can make $millions running the things. It costs big bucks to operate nuclear power plants (and to store and manage the waste). They don't want to see low-cost energy sources because they can't make money off them (you).
Pnyaegan you have great thoughts and much smarter ideas such as placing nuke plants undergound... I agree, the futher away the better and of course not in an earthquake zone, for obvious reasons?!?...I say let's scrap the whole nuke thing. It will come back and bite us eventually. Let's go to something like the Maglev Wind Turbine...cleaner sources!, however the nuke prosperity and savior to development all over the world wheels are in motion.......wow?!?...no turning back???...Yes, Meglev!!
Umm... I'm noticing an issue here. Did you take into account how much a turbine that big would weigh? You would need a strong, constant wind to keep it running. In the same space, you could have tens of thousands of much smaller and more efficient turbines that would generate more power than one big one, if you positioned them properly...
The scale they seem to be working at is not feasible at the moment. Small to medium-sized installations would allow them to work out some systemic bugs before attempting to implement the system on a large scale. If it's so self-contained, could a smaller version on a roof power a building? Most buildings don't have anything but air conditioning and cell towers up there anyway.
@ld871111 And your going to do "what" with the waste materials when the control rods wear out? To date we store them in pools of water until we carve em into weapons. Later we can use the sabot rounds to decorate the country sides and towns of people we know little or nothing about. Years after that, farmers can dig them up in their fields and feed their people on the food grown there. You are willing to wait for a "newer better" nuclear reactor in light of the failures? Give your gen2/3 time.
The largest wind farm in the world can hardly produce electricity for 200 homes at its peak capacity, so much for your wet dream. On the other hand, nuclear power is proven to have the highest output with the lowest amount of fuel input. Three reactor out of over 400 nuclear commercial reactors melted down in the past 50 years.
By the way, nuclear waste can be recycled into MOX fuel and used again. Gen IV reactors will produce waste with vastly reduce half life, at much greater output. Nuclear fusion is the future of power generation, not some gigantic wind fan.
I know this is a wind site, but Look at Fukushima, all those reactors sitting right there on the coast where there is a constant source of clean energy, The WAVES never stop moving!??? / Talk about iRONY?!...What would more water do?.....More energy!!!...?....Why do they keep selling that nuclear STUFF???
@archsticks You bring up a good point about "all those reactors". What genius decided it was such a great idea to not only put a nuke plant in a well known earthquake zone but also set them up like "track housing"? So if one nuke melts down, who will be able to get in there and keep the other plants working? If when a nuke "does" melt down all we can do is bury it, why do we build them ABOVE GROUND!? Why don't we build them underground so IF it melts down all we have to do is plug the entrance?
The Soviet Union sent dozens of miners to their deaths pouring concrete into the bottom of Chernybol reactor to prevent the core from melting down into the ground. If the core reaches ground water, it would be shit hitting the fan. Instead of exclusion zone tens of kilometers in diameter, we're talking about hundreds. That's why no engineers with half a brain would risk building an underground commercial nuclear plant.
@ld871111 Don't build it where ground water is a hazard. (really you are setting a double standard bordering on hypocrisy) I can say the same thing about Chernobyl being built over a ground water table. So what engineers "with half a brain" built it there? Or in an earthquake zone, close to a seaside prone to tsunami?But building them below ground is a stupid idea as well. You cool with below ground nuclear testing then? Happens all the time. Korea is proud of their latest test.
There is no way in knowing how deep the core will melt to if it does melt. In addition, underground water streams can be extremely small to be overlooked by geographical surveys. If the fuel reaches them, hundreds of thousands will be put at risk.
You're a dumbass for thinking nuclear blast and nuclear fission power generation produce the same amount of radiation traces. They're not even remotely close.
@ld871111 "The Soviet Union sent dozens of miners to their deaths pouring concrete into the bottom of Chernybol reactor to prevent the core from melting down into the ground. If the core reaches ground water"
Your words complete with misspelling.
"There is no way in knowing how deep the core will melt to if it does melt. "
Also your words. This makes you a hypocrite. This is only fair since you have already called me stupid, dumb-ass and worst of all a hippie. Your hypocrisy....
@ld871111 ....Your hypocrisy doesn't stop there, you feign concern for the ground water and completely disregarded my point on mismanaged nuclear waste (by the way I looked it up, there are at least 8 sunken nuke subs that we "know" of and plenty of old nuke reactor cores dumped in the ocean compliments of the U.S.S.R. not that the U.S. is any better, we dumped plenty into international waters back in the 50's. (we probably still do) Where is your "defense" for your half brained engineers?
@ld871111 You seem to leave out or not be too concerned with some other examples of mismanaged nuclear technology. I can think of three nuclear submarines lost at sea just off the top of my head. Two Russian and one American. Left to the bottom of the sea never to be recovered. Out of sight out of mind. If I'm not mistaken they still hold their nuclear payloads as well. My idea is the stupidest thing you've ever heard? That's funny. You misspelled Chernobyl genius.
You can choke to death while eating, so why are you still doing it? There are accidents and risks to all methods of power generation, and yet nuclear power industry has the best safety record and strictest regulation. Also, it generates the greatest amount of electricity with the smallest amount of fuel. Nuclear power is the future, and no fringe environmentalist can stop it.
Right, misplacing a letter in a Ukrainian place defeats my whole arguement. Typical hippie.
@ld871111 I eat because I would die if I didn't eat. Mankind has lived a long time without electricity so your argument there is weak at best. I never argued that nuclear power generated the greatest amount of electricity for the least amount of fuel. (funny how it doesn't reflect in your electric bill) I don't argue nuclear power is here to stay. My argument is for the health and well being of mankind as a species. Since we split the atom, cancer has gone off the scale. Is that coincidence?
Great, if you dislike nuclear power that much, stop using electricity and throw away all your appliances. Maybe when environmental crybabies do that, we can save enough to stop needing so many nuclear power plants. Since you stated cancer has gone up since nuclear technology was developed, could it be that we have better medical screening? I see people living longer and longer, hardly doomsday scenario.
@ld871111 I was wondering when you were going to attack my use of electricity.There in lay "my" hypocrisy. Though I probably use less than you and have little choice of where to get it from. I can use a similar tactic. If your such a proponent of nuclear power, how about you going to Japan and help them clean up their mess? I'm sure they would appreciate any volunteers to haul concrete... or push a broom. I'm sure you'll be safe from radiation and your chances of developing cancer .....
@Pynaegan Last I checked, the death toll from the Japan disaster caused as a direct result of it being a nuclear plant (that is, ignoring physical causes) is zero. And there were only a handful of workers who received enough radiation worth being concerned about. The known death toll from the type of reactor we use today (that is, not like Chernobyl) is zero (it's impossible to say whether cancer rates increase, but the variation around, say, TMI isn't statistically significant).
@BenkaiDebussy Now THAT is an argument for which I am not prepared to pursue a rebuttal. Primarily because I have no "reliable" news source. I have very little faith in AP or Reuters. I find it interesting that there seems to be very little information about this most recent meltdown.(plenty of celeb gossip though) Looks like another story for the memory hole. Time will tell.(or perhaps not)
@Pynaegan You can't cover up radiation leaking outside of the plant. Anyone with the equipment necessary could measure it. The only thing they could cover up is high radiation inside the plant that could harm the workers.
The worst case scenario is that the superheated corium in the reactor melts deep into the concrete "bowl" below it. It wouldn't physically harm anyone, but it would cost many billlions to clean up. They might be covering up something like this, but it's impossible to say.
@BenkaiDebussy I we could find ways to create power that dont involve, mining, burning, or radiating? there is geothermal, wind, solar, magnetic, and several combinations in between...........
I would also like research to go towards renewable energy sources. But it will take decades until they can power a large country.
Nuclear power has had only one accident that caused death due to radiation in ~50 years - Chernobyl. No plants today use Chernobyl's design, and the same accident could not occur with them. Radiation levels near nuclear plants are lower than levels near coal plants, and neither pose any risk.
It's the only way to significantly reduce global warming/fossil fuel use.
@deedundone By the way, I know I might sound like a shill for nuclear power, but there's a lot of misinformation out there due to the way the media portrays nuclear power - think Captain Planet. I think that someday we'll be able to power everything using renewables, and the technology improves every year. But realistically, for at least the next couple decades, the choice will be between nuclear and coal/fossil fuels, and nuclear is orders of magnitude safer and better for the environment.
@cartmanrlsusall The sun is also leaking radiation in Seattle. Radiation levels anywhere except the plant itself aren't nearly high enough to cause physical harm. Anyone can measure radiation, so it can't be covered up.
Even though it took an earthquake *and* tsunami to cause this, no one aside from some workers faces any danger from radiation. The only accident in ~60 years to kill people with radiation is Chernobyl, and all active plants use a design where such a disaster is impossible.
@Assi2004 20,000 deaths from Chernobyl at the very least, but the Soviets moved around the sick people and lied on the death certificates. The Russians hated to be embarassed.
We could find EFFECTIVE ways of generating power, such as investing in Gen IV nuclear reactor research. Good luck trying to match the output of nuclear power with "renewables".
....developing cancer would be negligible. There is a reason the X-ray technician stands behind a reenforced concrete wall while wearing a lead apron when you get an X-ray picture taken. I think the thing that bugs me most about your views on nuclear power is that it appears to be the "only" answer. You are not open to any other possibilities.Your only 23 years old and very "closed minded". That's depressing. The difference between you and me is that I'm still looking for another way.
@Pynaegan Hey, I am for nuclear power, as well as renewable energy. Nuclear power could be so amazing if it wasnt misinterpreted. Newer fifth generation reactors should be built, as well as thorium based reactors. CANDU reactors is a reason I am proud to be Canadian. i am also for the development of fusion power energy. I do not think mankind should rely on any single form on energy, just so that we have redundancies in case of unpredictable events.
Come on Folks, why do we miss the oBvious, clean sources of energy are all around us. TALK ABOUT WASTES, and not to mention nuclear wastes, how much energy, design, research, study, cost, equipment, BraiN HEADACHE, etc. etc... does it take to even DEsiGn a nUclear plant?? as opposed to a gIANT wind turbine or a gIANT solar machine, or gIANT TurbINES powered by the OCEANs (what ever happened to that idea??) right under ours FEET!! BIgger Bucks should be invested in those, Cost Less I bet!
@thinkstrait 100 years from now that may be the story. but with 50-60 years of fossil fuels left We need to start getting off the Oil tit soon so we can make some smooth transitions. Unless you want more oil wars....
this would cost billions to construct such a massive GW sized turbine. It could be a good idea, but its kind of a long shot wether or not it will be an economical solution.
@ztcrown id like to think it will be cheaper... but you can't know until it has been constructed. have actual plans been drawn up with an estimate cost or is this just the idea?
@Merecir i agree. jus dont make the same mistakes the fukushima designers did. ( near a fault line. subect to quakes and tsunami's. also back up gen was underground it powered the cooling for plant.it also flooded rendering it useless. had it not been done so, the outcome i guess would have been totally different
I doubt it. would love to see the actual specs though. Is this the design they are trying to prove up on for the answer to hurricane country? The traditional design needs a face lift for sure. maybe one thats cost effectie for building without government subsidies...
@rawheas FYI, anything that uses a renewable source to provide power is automatically an economical solution. Even at a cost of billions. On the other hand, anything requiring a fuel source, ie gas, oil, coal, nuclear, etc, is completely 110% NOT an economical solution as they result in a net loss of energy versus production.
@unmaking uhm.... they result in a net loss? are you serious? if they resulted in a net loss then how can they be producing the vast majority of power in the world today? there is no debate that it is currently cheaper to make a natural gas or coal plant than a wind farm by power production. you can't just lie, this shit is calculated every year by the us department of energy and they understand buisness well enough to provide more reliable info than yourself.
1 cubic meter of Earth crust contains 12 grams of Thorium. That is enough to power the life of a human being in the western world for 10-15 years. A Thorium reactor burn 100% of the fuel and less then 20% of the waste need to be stored safely for 300 years. It is estimated that the amount of Thorium easily available on Earth and in our solar system could power the entire human civilization for thousands of years, even with the estimated exponential increase of our power needs.
@rawheas FYI, anything that uses a renewable source to provide power is automatically an economical solution. Even at a cost of billions. On the other hand, anything requiring a fuel source, ie gas, oil, coal, nuclear, etc, is completely 110% NOT an economical solution as they result in a net loss of energy versus production.
@rawheas Better and more effective then any Nuclear plant , allot cheaper too. No spent rods to dumb in war zones ...:( This is simply much better and smarter
@rawheas Why do you say this would cost "beeeeeeeelllyuhhhhhhhhns"?How much does 1000 propeller towers cost? I do not see why this would not cost substantially less than such a propeller type wind farm.
this is GW sized... i hope you realize that it would cost well into the billions to construct such a device. it may work well but its kind of a long shot.
I think it would be better if they used tanker trains so they could compress the electrons for better volume per load, when delivering them to the city.
In all seriousness, I think this is an awesome idea. Nuclear energy is better then fossil fuels, but renewable is better then nuclear at least from an environmental aspect. Just need big projects like this to actually take off and not be stopped by stupid political BS.
Precisely, Super conductive magnets with HTS wires... actually, this is just a concept animation from while back, Actual design of Maglev Wind Turbine is completely different, complete levitation ( no friction) and much more efficient. Thx !!!
@ztcrown but it seems quite simple to create mega-powerfull magnets and just have them spinning turbines all day every day forever to generate electricity, why cant we do that?.
@ztcrown I am all for this kind of stuff, we need be be investing in Wind, Wave, Tidal, Soler, Geo-thermal, Hydrogen as well as developing fully operational Nuclear Fusion plants.
Now this is the way they we should be thinking about Wind Energy,.. Bigger means serving more people,== Elementry Watson! then next another and another out in the country.... maybe whole cities can be built on top of these things...beats the ol' 1970's still using in 2011= Propella on a stick' by far......
Then under the turbine are the magnets and coil´s, the magnetic shaft and the non magnetic gears and the magnetic fiel generated by the electrons fluid make this wind operated turbine and her generator case fundation, i build a similar long ago, i add some water spray to generate wind courrens, then i mix magnetic dust on the ground and ,then i use zink batterys under the axle and coiled with copper, in this way i build a battery charger moved by air and over 6 aaa battery´s
I made a small version of this a few years ago that was about 4 feet across. I came to the conclusion after testing mine that this type of windmill is superior. WOuld kill less birds and would have alot more power. Glad to see I was on the right track. Gotta build another one and show it! Great idea! Thumbs up! When is one of these going to be built?
I don't buy the stats. Physical limitation (betz's Law) says how much wind power can be extracted from the wind which is 59%.
What's the difference between this and a few 500KW rotors with the same cross section? Also, wind turbines don't need outside power as is alleged. No more than this system would. Global is misspelled.
Looks like SCAM to me. Does NOT pass smell test. No numbers up to show the x-section of his system how much land that takes versus the x section of typical rotors.
@ztcrown I enjoy your video. I live in Glendale AZ. I didn't know the landscape in Sierra Vista was so lush with green fields. But the landscape is missing mexicans escaping into the U.S. That city... is it Phoenix or Tucson? The vid is cool.
I'm hoping for a non-turbine form of power generation, one that makes use of the Vacuum Energy Density/nuclear energy conversion that occurs at the surface boundary of molecules. A means of rectification of current flow needs to be developed though.
Supported by huge rare earth magnetic bearings :-) Who controls the entire planet supply already.? China. It's nice to see disruptive technological concepts but in reality, if a revolutionary power generation technology was developed based around massive consumption of rare earth elements, it would be for the exclusive advantage of the Chinese domestic economy, and banned from export anywhere else. The Chinese are much more forward thinking than the West, and have predicted this scenario already
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 NEED TO 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 blades automatically close.
NO FIRE since well-cooled.
HELPS THE WIND ENERGY COMPANIES since it is FREE FOR ALL.
TheServiceWeb 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
Visit: windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
ZERO-NOISE from gears and generators since they're sealed underground.
SAVES THE BIRDS AND BATS since the turbines are slow-moving.
DOES NOT NEED TO OCCUPY A WIDER LANDSCAPE since the turbine can be very tall.
MAY BE LOWER-COST since it can use parts of junked trucks and others.
ELUDES HURRICANE FORCE since the blades automatically close.
HELPS THE WIND ENERGY COMPANIES since it is FREE FOR ALL.
TheServiceWeb 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
ZERO-NOISE from the gears and the generator because they are silenced underground (Only the outer parts of the turbine may create sound.).
This SAVES THE BIRDS AND BATS (since slow-moving) and helps the wind energy companies (since it is FREE FOR ALL.).
TheServiceWeb 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
THIS SAVES THE BIRDS and helps the wind energy companies (FREE FOR ALL.).
TheServiceWeb 2 weeks ago
Are those office condos on the top floor of that thing ?
JaxxBat 1 month ago
BUt what about the BIRDS?!?! THEY RUN INTO THAT KINDA SHIT!!
PkSage89 1 month ago
@PkSage89 if a bird hits a 100 acre wide building thats who knows how tall then it deserves to die
bryanh55 1 month ago
@bryanh55 , Birds are better at flying than humans..
JaxxBat 1 month ago
@JaxxBat ...thanks i didnt realize
bryanh55 1 month ago
@bryanh55 , haha
JaxxBat 1 month ago
so how tall is this ?
scott98390 2 months ago
@scott98390 on the gray on the side, those are cars btw lol that thing is HUGE
heemoii 2 months ago
Why does this remind me of " The Simpson's" monorail episode?
MeatPopsicle2011 2 months ago
Good project, save the earth..
dillionedison 3 months ago 7
@dillionedison or not xD takes up to much space
lillskiten1337 1 month ago
@lillskiten1337
Have You ever looked at how much space NPP's really use? It is appalling how much area is needed for the cooling towers alone. And then some radioactivity. This puppy here can go where nobody else wants to be. One of those would give the Big Island all the energy it ever needs. Put it right where the military is on top of saddle road. No more diesel, no more geo-thermal, no more batteries. But first we have to make it through 2012...
youralmostthere 2 weeks ago
Hi Mr !
VAWT news Savonius Magic - Patent
Hook-WindRotor System's
YouTube savoniusbalaton's channel
savoniusbalaton 3 months ago
@braedencowbrough Your statement is CONTRADICTORY. If Thorium plants have operated successfully why is there NOT ONE IN OPERATION RIGHT NOW!
Thorium is as common as lead but has no fissioning power on it's own and so requires uranium or worse still deadly plutonium to fission. That way you end up with a double whammy as thorium wastes remain radio-active for millions of years! Please note that Kakrapur1 in India is not working now and govt officials are minting money in so called research!
angelialvares 3 months ago
how much does this thing cost anyways?
Dreadstench 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homemade Solar panels,reduce energy usage click my name below.
jarkosih 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very cool
To see more innovative videos like this or want to share your own ideas visit ThinkStageDOTcom
ThinkStage 4 months ago
Very cool
To see more innovative videos like this or want to share your own ideas visit ThinkStageDOTcom
ThinkStage 4 months ago
if only Sierra Vista looked like that.
systemaddictshock 4 months ago
A thought - instead of running on tons of rare earth magnets for the bearings, use a film of air - easy, cheap and if you ever need to brake the turbine, slow down the air flow till the turbine comes to rest. Plywood brake pads would work well.
callmeshane303 4 months ago
@unamxify todate there is not a single thorium reactor working in the WHOLE WORLD. The talk is all hocus pocus as thorium salts keep eroding the metal pipes. U.S. tried it in the 60s, India has tried it twice and had to shut down twice and keeps promising a future date...there is right now an offshore hexagonal placed wind turbine energy available that can produce as much electricity as a nuclear power plant.It's bloody expensive but still cheaper than nuclear and it's radiation free!
angelialvares 4 months ago
@angelialvares Thorium power plants have operated successfully... Currently need more research into them, but they are a reality. What you are confusing yourself with is that the molten salt reactors are not using a thorium salt.... but a salt as a coolant/heating fluid to transfer energy. Thorium is kept as the metal and is hit with slow neutrons to turn into U233 to fission. Yes I love wind power too, but there also needs to be redundancies for it.
braedencowbrough 3 months ago
@unamxify todate there is not a single thorium reactor working in the WHOLE WORLD. The talk is all hocus pocus as thorium salts keep eroding the metal pipes. U.S. tried it in the 60s, India has tried it twice and had to shut down twice and keeps promising a future date...there is right now an offshore hexagonal placed wind turbine energy available that can produce as much electricity as a nuclear power plant.It's bloody expensive but still cheaper than nuclear and it's radiation free!
angelialvares 4 months ago
u people are fools. thorium reactors, nuclear reactors, panties, phssshaw. fools we dont need any of that. they should be banned. all we need are dilithum crystals. once we can figure out how to safely harness that power. we would even reach distant stars since it can power warp drives. and in space.there is no gravity so skirts would float up. then they can enact a law. women in space can only wear sun dresses for their safety. MUhahahahaha u fools, ive already thought of everything. Muhahaha
GoldenShaolinNutz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Solar/Wind/GeoThermo are green but Expensive !
If you wand to save Thousands of dollars on your electric bill
Go to Google and search for -- Top Magnet Generator ---
Click the First Result (Not the Advertisement)
And you'll find how to build your own Magnetic Generator
That can easily power your house for free!
SurvivalGuide2012 4 months ago
surround earth with copper.. when earth spins --> produce electric. >:O
yaykaboom 4 months ago 29
@yaykaboom Doesn't the copper also spin? Or is the plan to create a 41,000 km copper wire to place in low earth orbit?
sustainablehuman 4 months ago
@sustainablehuman
lok ad HEPPOLT NO PROPLEM
aacowboy12 4 months ago
@sustainablehuman i think it was a joke
nathantnnguyen1 2 months ago
@nathantnnguyen1 Awww ,,, I really wanted to know the plan to put the copper into orbit :(
sustainablehuman 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually its the JEWISH Media Dictatorship that is Killing the Electric Car & Maglev Train -
Media which is totally under Jewish Control and Dictatorship
has put a 1000% Censorship on Electric Car and Maglev Train and other Green Technologies
Jewish Media is more Concerned about whether Monika Lewinski gave a perfect *** Job to Bill Clinton or Not -
whether Paris Hilton brushed her teeth today or Not --- thats the News u hear
Not about Electric Car OR Maglev Train or Green Tech
watup2154 4 months ago
neat
Omegahybridx 4 months ago
anyone tried___ w w w diymagneticmotor com ?
70pda 4 months ago
o kurwa o_O
voyager113113 5 months ago
It is a great invention using maglev tech. Lets go for it.
eblair12 5 months ago
why is there a train?
pawpawnorth 5 months ago
MCP from Tron anyone?
matt9741399 6 months ago
@matt9741399
Yeah, I thought that too when I first saw the video a while back. Why didn't I think of this as a kid back in the early 80's when I first saw Tron?
pmgodfrey 1 month ago
and then a tornado passes by ftw :3, won't it spin out of control ?
alpinemanlover 6 months ago
@alpinemanlover and then a tornado passes by a nuclear power plant, or worse yet, A TSUNAMI!
mlopinto2k1 6 months ago
Maglev costs far less than nuclear, takes far less space, costs thousands of times less to maintain and operate.. and is much safer. They don't even have safe permanent storage for nuclear waste yet.
Why do you think industries are pushing nuclear so hard? Because they can make $millions running the things. It costs big bucks to operate nuclear power plants (and to store and manage the waste). They don't want to see low-cost energy sources because they can't make money off them (you).
Bibliophilos 6 months ago 3
Comment removed
Bibliophilos 6 months ago
but will it blend?
irapedyourgoat 6 months ago 2
make the bottom half spin opposite to create 2x electricity
jbrun009 6 months ago
Will that fit in my back yard???
ArcadeGames 6 months ago
This looks great! I am an artist on YouTube trying to promote my theory on the dynamics of light and time
This theory is based on just two simple postulates
1. The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time itself
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event
nickharvey7 7 months ago
Its so big that it spins the earth.
drbackjack 7 months ago 2
The turbine of next Tuesday -
Now all it needs is a frikken "laser" cannon to defend the Pamela Anderson clones and twinkies from the impending Zombie apocalypse.
Huzzah!
CHIKUNHED 7 months ago
Yeah, but how long will it take to build?
platinum243125 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
___ w w w diymagneticmotor com for FREE energy|~
msformulax3 7 months ago
This is the coolest power plant I have ever seen! :D
WHEN is is getting built, and where? Would be awesome to have a "pilot plant". Then I'd recommend it to the authorities in my city.
Soldier957 7 months ago
The dam thing would would make the world wabble..
peskeybobcat 7 months ago
ITS OVER 9000! friggin huge
kabobularproductions 8 months ago
I'd hate to have a pacemaker when I'm going to one of them giant magnets
legox50 8 months ago
I want this generator.
p5qlse 8 months ago
No es mala idea no? Mejor que Hidroaysén?
jazzsinger2003 8 months ago
Pnyaegan you have great thoughts and much smarter ideas such as placing nuke plants undergound... I agree, the futher away the better and of course not in an earthquake zone, for obvious reasons?!?...I say let's scrap the whole nuke thing. It will come back and bite us eventually. Let's go to something like the Maglev Wind Turbine...cleaner sources!, however the nuke prosperity and savior to development all over the world wheels are in motion.......wow?!?...no turning back???...Yes, Meglev!!
archsticks 8 months ago
Umm... I'm noticing an issue here. Did you take into account how much a turbine that big would weigh? You would need a strong, constant wind to keep it running. In the same space, you could have tens of thousands of much smaller and more efficient turbines that would generate more power than one big one, if you positioned them properly...
Bigger isn't always better.
McFuckNuggets 8 months ago
We could turn this baby into a nice merry-go-round for the kids. Kids love going around in circles.
mbrown187 8 months ago
The scale they seem to be working at is not feasible at the moment. Small to medium-sized installations would allow them to work out some systemic bugs before attempting to implement the system on a large scale. If it's so self-contained, could a smaller version on a roof power a building? Most buildings don't have anything but air conditioning and cell towers up there anyway.
Shikishinfuni 9 months ago
need to yolk prisoners, fat people to it - contribute to the community and lose weight = win
asedcopf 9 months ago
What if that thing topples and rolls down the hill towards the city?
I see half the city's getting flattened.
ld871111 9 months ago
@ld871111 Still better than a nuke melting down in your back yard.
Pynaegan 8 months ago
@Pynaegan
Really? How many Gen II and Gen III reactors melted down in the last 20 years?
Answer: Zero
ld871111 8 months ago
@ld871111 And your going to do "what" with the waste materials when the control rods wear out? To date we store them in pools of water until we carve em into weapons. Later we can use the sabot rounds to decorate the country sides and towns of people we know little or nothing about. Years after that, farmers can dig them up in their fields and feed their people on the food grown there. You are willing to wait for a "newer better" nuclear reactor in light of the failures? Give your gen2/3 time.
Pynaegan 8 months ago
@Pynaegan
The largest wind farm in the world can hardly produce electricity for 200 homes at its peak capacity, so much for your wet dream. On the other hand, nuclear power is proven to have the highest output with the lowest amount of fuel input. Three reactor out of over 400 nuclear commercial reactors melted down in the past 50 years.
ld871111 8 months ago
@Pynaegan
By the way, nuclear waste can be recycled into MOX fuel and used again. Gen IV reactors will produce waste with vastly reduce half life, at much greater output. Nuclear fusion is the future of power generation, not some gigantic wind fan.
ld871111 8 months ago
@InsaneBurrito45 The German Technic Universoty build a meglev with Supra magnets. Hell that thing can fly on a wall :)
Trustds07 9 months ago
Quantum leap? :p
joeylawn36111 9 months ago
I know this is a wind site, but Look at Fukushima, all those reactors sitting right there on the coast where there is a constant source of clean energy, The WAVES never stop moving!??? / Talk about iRONY?!...What would more water do?.....More energy!!!...?....Why do they keep selling that nuclear STUFF???
archsticks 9 months ago
@archsticks You bring up a good point about "all those reactors". What genius decided it was such a great idea to not only put a nuke plant in a well known earthquake zone but also set them up like "track housing"? So if one nuke melts down, who will be able to get in there and keep the other plants working? If when a nuke "does" melt down all we can do is bury it, why do we build them ABOVE GROUND!? Why don't we build them underground so IF it melts down all we have to do is plug the entrance?
Pynaegan 8 months ago
@Pynaegan
The Soviet Union sent dozens of miners to their deaths pouring concrete into the bottom of Chernybol reactor to prevent the core from melting down into the ground. If the core reaches ground water, it would be shit hitting the fan. Instead of exclusion zone tens of kilometers in diameter, we're talking about hundreds. That's why no engineers with half a brain would risk building an underground commercial nuclear plant.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard.
ld871111 8 months ago
@ld871111 Don't build it where ground water is a hazard. (really you are setting a double standard bordering on hypocrisy) I can say the same thing about Chernobyl being built over a ground water table. So what engineers "with half a brain" built it there? Or in an earthquake zone, close to a seaside prone to tsunami?But building them below ground is a stupid idea as well. You cool with below ground nuclear testing then? Happens all the time. Korea is proud of their latest test.
Pynaegan 8 months ago
@Pynaegan
There is no way in knowing how deep the core will melt to if it does melt. In addition, underground water streams can be extremely small to be overlooked by geographical surveys. If the fuel reaches them, hundreds of thousands will be put at risk.
You're a dumbass for thinking nuclear blast and nuclear fission power generation produce the same amount of radiation traces. They're not even remotely close.
ld871111 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ld871111 "The Soviet Union sent dozens of miners to their deaths pouring concrete into the bottom of Chernybol reactor to prevent the core from melting down into the ground. If the core reaches ground water"
Your words complete with misspelling.
"There is no way in knowing how deep the core will melt to if it does melt. "
Also your words. This makes you a hypocrite. This is only fair since you have already called me stupid, dumb-ass and worst of all a hippie. Your hypocrisy....
Pynaegan 8 months ago
@ld871111 ....Your hypocrisy doesn't stop there, you feign concern for the ground water and completely disregarded my point on mismanaged nuclear waste (by the way I looked it up, there are at least 8 sunken nuke subs that we "know" of and plenty of old nuke reactor cores dumped in the ocean compliments of the U.S.S.R. not that the U.S. is any better, we dumped plenty into international waters back in the 50's. (we probably still do) Where is your "defense" for your half brained engineers?
Pynaegan 8 months ago
@ld871111 You seem to leave out or not be too concerned with some other examples of mismanaged nuclear technology. I can think of three nuclear submarines lost at sea just off the top of my head. Two Russian and one American. Left to the bottom of the sea never to be recovered. Out of sight out of mind. If I'm not mistaken they still hold their nuclear payloads as well. My idea is the stupidest thing you've ever heard? That's funny. You misspelled Chernobyl genius.
Pynaegan 8 months ago
@Pynaegan
You can choke to death while eating, so why are you still doing it? There are accidents and risks to all methods of power generation, and yet nuclear power industry has the best safety record and strictest regulation. Also, it generates the greatest amount of electricity with the smallest amount of fuel. Nuclear power is the future, and no fringe environmentalist can stop it.
Right, misplacing a letter in a Ukrainian place defeats my whole arguement. Typical hippie.
ld871111 8 months ago
@ld871111 I eat because I would die if I didn't eat. Mankind has lived a long time without electricity so your argument there is weak at best. I never argued that nuclear power generated the greatest amount of electricity for the least amount of fuel. (funny how it doesn't reflect in your electric bill) I don't argue nuclear power is here to stay. My argument is for the health and well being of mankind as a species. Since we split the atom, cancer has gone off the scale. Is that coincidence?
Pynaegan 8 months ago
@Pynaegan
Great, if you dislike nuclear power that much, stop using electricity and throw away all your appliances. Maybe when environmental crybabies do that, we can save enough to stop needing so many nuclear power plants. Since you stated cancer has gone up since nuclear technology was developed, could it be that we have better medical screening? I see people living longer and longer, hardly doomsday scenario.
You argument is invalid.
ld871111 8 months ago
@ld871111 I was wondering when you were going to attack my use of electricity.There in lay "my" hypocrisy. Though I probably use less than you and have little choice of where to get it from. I can use a similar tactic. If your such a proponent of nuclear power, how about you going to Japan and help them clean up their mess? I'm sure they would appreciate any volunteers to haul concrete... or push a broom. I'm sure you'll be safe from radiation and your chances of developing cancer .....
Pynaegan 8 months ago
@Pynaegan Last I checked, the death toll from the Japan disaster caused as a direct result of it being a nuclear plant (that is, ignoring physical causes) is zero. And there were only a handful of workers who received enough radiation worth being concerned about. The known death toll from the type of reactor we use today (that is, not like Chernobyl) is zero (it's impossible to say whether cancer rates increase, but the variation around, say, TMI isn't statistically significant).
BenkaiDebussy 8 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy Now THAT is an argument for which I am not prepared to pursue a rebuttal. Primarily because I have no "reliable" news source. I have very little faith in AP or Reuters. I find it interesting that there seems to be very little information about this most recent meltdown.(plenty of celeb gossip though) Looks like another story for the memory hole. Time will tell.(or perhaps not)
Pynaegan 8 months ago
@Pynaegan You can't cover up radiation leaking outside of the plant. Anyone with the equipment necessary could measure it. The only thing they could cover up is high radiation inside the plant that could harm the workers.
The worst case scenario is that the superheated corium in the reactor melts deep into the concrete "bowl" below it. It wouldn't physically harm anyone, but it would cost many billlions to clean up. They might be covering up something like this, but it's impossible to say.
BenkaiDebussy 8 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy There' s already a man who died.
MrMushedup 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMushedup No one has died as a result of radiation.
BenkaiDebussy 8 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy I we could find ways to create power that dont involve, mining, burning, or radiating? there is geothermal, wind, solar, magnetic, and several combinations in between...........
deedundone 8 months ago
I would also like research to go towards renewable energy sources. But it will take decades until they can power a large country.
Nuclear power has had only one accident that caused death due to radiation in ~50 years - Chernobyl. No plants today use Chernobyl's design, and the same accident could not occur with them. Radiation levels near nuclear plants are lower than levels near coal plants, and neither pose any risk.
It's the only way to significantly reduce global warming/fossil fuel use.
BenkaiDebussy 8 months ago
@deedundone By the way, I know I might sound like a shill for nuclear power, but there's a lot of misinformation out there due to the way the media portrays nuclear power - think Captain Planet. I think that someday we'll be able to power everything using renewables, and the technology improves every year. But realistically, for at least the next couple decades, the choice will be between nuclear and coal/fossil fuels, and nuclear is orders of magnitude safer and better for the environment.
BenkaiDebussy 8 months ago
@BenkaiDebussy tell that to the eartquake proof reactor in japan thats leaking radioactivity all the way in seatle
cartmanrlsusall 7 months ago
@cartmanrlsusall The sun is also leaking radiation in Seattle. Radiation levels anywhere except the plant itself aren't nearly high enough to cause physical harm. Anyone can measure radiation, so it can't be covered up.
Even though it took an earthquake *and* tsunami to cause this, no one aside from some workers faces any danger from radiation. The only accident in ~60 years to kill people with radiation is Chernobyl, and all active plants use a design where such a disaster is impossible.
BenkaiDebussy 7 months ago 2
@BenkaiDebussy even in chernobyl there are not even 100 radiation deaths so far :)
Assi2004 7 months ago
@Assi2004 20,000 deaths from Chernobyl at the very least, but the Soviets moved around the sick people and lied on the death certificates. The Russians hated to be embarassed.
rickcain2320 7 months ago
@rickcain2320 where do u find 20.000? :D
check out what greenpeace says and u got the upper limit - and they are WELL below 20.000
Assi2004 6 months ago
@deedundone
We could find EFFECTIVE ways of generating power, such as investing in Gen IV nuclear reactor research. Good luck trying to match the output of nuclear power with "renewables".
ld871111 8 months ago
....developing cancer would be negligible. There is a reason the X-ray technician stands behind a reenforced concrete wall while wearing a lead apron when you get an X-ray picture taken. I think the thing that bugs me most about your views on nuclear power is that it appears to be the "only" answer. You are not open to any other possibilities.Your only 23 years old and very "closed minded". That's depressing. The difference between you and me is that I'm still looking for another way.
Pynaegan 8 months ago 11
@Pynaegan Hey, I am for nuclear power, as well as renewable energy. Nuclear power could be so amazing if it wasnt misinterpreted. Newer fifth generation reactors should be built, as well as thorium based reactors. CANDU reactors is a reason I am proud to be Canadian. i am also for the development of fusion power energy. I do not think mankind should rely on any single form on energy, just so that we have redundancies in case of unpredictable events.
braedencowbrough 3 months ago
Come on Folks, why do we miss the oBvious, clean sources of energy are all around us. TALK ABOUT WASTES, and not to mention nuclear wastes, how much energy, design, research, study, cost, equipment, BraiN HEADACHE, etc. etc... does it take to even DEsiGn a nUclear plant?? as opposed to a gIANT wind turbine or a gIANT solar machine, or gIANT TurbINES powered by the OCEANs (what ever happened to that idea??) right under ours FEET!! BIgger Bucks should be invested in those, Cost Less I bet!
archsticks 9 months ago
wow looks like it would be a monster of a machine
Digitalpatterns 9 months ago
Excellent! How's it selling
teedome3284 9 months ago
Comment removed
firstclasslady50 9 months ago
I'd like it more with out 2 floors of office space it appears to have on top. And the train seems out of place.
Just seems like It could be done better...
WildoTheRubberFist 9 months ago
as creative as this is the future is in harnessing the power of the atom
thinkstrait 9 months ago
@thinkstrait 100 years from now that may be the story. but with 50-60 years of fossil fuels left We need to start getting off the Oil tit soon so we can make some smooth transitions. Unless you want more oil wars....
WildoTheRubberFist 9 months ago
sand that thing to my house and I will put The new and improved generator on it !
TheRealDealinlife 9 months ago
I'll take one... no, two.
mindsaglowin 9 months ago
this would cost billions to construct such a massive GW sized turbine. It could be a good idea, but its kind of a long shot wether or not it will be an economical solution.
rawheas 9 months ago
@rawheas
well, still costs less than Nuclear plant and MUCH safer .....
ztcrown 9 months ago 47
@ztcrown id like to think it will be cheaper... but you can't know until it has been constructed. have actual plans been drawn up with an estimate cost or is this just the idea?
rawheas 9 months ago
@ztcrown
Modern nuclear powerplants are safe
watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8
Merecir 9 months ago
@Merecir i agree. jus dont make the same mistakes the fukushima designers did. ( near a fault line. subect to quakes and tsunami's. also back up gen was underground it powered the cooling for plant.it also flooded rendering it useless. had it not been done so, the outcome i guess would have been totally different
yamahonkawazuki 9 months ago
@yamahonkawazuki i agree too, nuclear power is the way to go. its not like fukushima reactors were all modern nuclear plants either...
rawheas 9 months ago
@ztcrown so is fussion power. and they ARE building that in france..
been under construction for 3-5 years now, and exspected/projected done in 2015..
Only using 2g's of plasma as fuel making it EXTREMELY safe, in any imaginable accident.
Havent seen this buildt anywhere, but i still see normal windmills buildt everywhere..
If these are so great.. i wonder why they are not buildt,
For fussion power check out iter dot org
Eqvaliser 9 months ago
@ztcrown But is the power output close to the output of a Nuclear plant?
Sokanastenev 5 months ago
@ztcrown
I doubt it. would love to see the actual specs though. Is this the design they are trying to prove up on for the answer to hurricane country? The traditional design needs a face lift for sure. maybe one thats cost effectie for building without government subsidies...
john101477 5 months ago
Comment removed
OmachePDX 4 months ago
@ztcrown Why would we take this over a wind farm?
MrJivePirate 4 months ago
@ztcrown I think a Molten Salt Thorium Reactor would be cheaper and take up less space. And be just as safe.
Tuttomenui 4 months ago
@Tuttomenui
agreed the Thorium Reactor is definitely the way to go
unamaxify 4 months ago
@rawheas FYI, anything that uses a renewable source to provide power is automatically an economical solution. Even at a cost of billions. On the other hand, anything requiring a fuel source, ie gas, oil, coal, nuclear, etc, is completely 110% NOT an economical solution as they result in a net loss of energy versus production.
unmaking 9 months ago
@unmaking uhm.... they result in a net loss? are you serious? if they resulted in a net loss then how can they be producing the vast majority of power in the world today? there is no debate that it is currently cheaper to make a natural gas or coal plant than a wind farm by power production. you can't just lie, this shit is calculated every year by the us department of energy and they understand buisness well enough to provide more reliable info than yourself.
rawheas 9 months ago
@unmaking
1 cubic meter of Earth crust contains 12 grams of Thorium. That is enough to power the life of a human being in the western world for 10-15 years. A Thorium reactor burn 100% of the fuel and less then 20% of the waste need to be stored safely for 300 years. It is estimated that the amount of Thorium easily available on Earth and in our solar system could power the entire human civilization for thousands of years, even with the estimated exponential increase of our power needs.
Merecir 9 months ago
@Merecir true thorium is easly found. some homemade reactors ( seen on youtube) explained this.
yamahonkawazuki 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rawheas FYI, anything that uses a renewable source to provide power is automatically an economical solution. Even at a cost of billions. On the other hand, anything requiring a fuel source, ie gas, oil, coal, nuclear, etc, is completely 110% NOT an economical solution as they result in a net loss of energy versus production.
unmaking 9 months ago
@rawheas Better and more effective then any Nuclear plant , allot cheaper too. No spent rods to dumb in war zones ...:( This is simply much better and smarter
LostFREEDOM 9 months ago
@rawheas i think that this would be almost the same price or even cheaper in €/watt than building a lot of wind mils to give the same amount of power
themassau 8 months ago
@rawheas
Don't be scared of technology.
rickcain2320 7 months ago
@rawheas Yea, its people like you that drives the world forward!!! Please use your energy on positive thinking.....
SilvaUltraMindESP 5 months ago
@rawheas how do u know that it will cost billions to construct?
bang187 5 months ago
@rawheas Why do you say this would cost "beeeeeeeelllyuhhhhhhhhns"?How much does 1000 propeller towers cost? I do not see why this would not cost substantially less than such a propeller type wind farm.
Indygoguy 4 months ago
this is GW sized... i hope you realize that it would cost well into the billions to construct such a device. it may work well but its kind of a long shot.
rawheas 9 months ago
I think it would be better if they used tanker trains so they could compress the electrons for better volume per load, when delivering them to the city.
In all seriousness, I think this is an awesome idea. Nuclear energy is better then fossil fuels, but renewable is better then nuclear at least from an environmental aspect. Just need big projects like this to actually take off and not be stopped by stupid political BS.
redsquirrelftw 9 months ago
@redsquirrelftw and not be stopped by nuclear industry PR and lobbying.
CJDiggs 9 months ago
hahahahaha
perjanan 9 months ago
@InsaneBurrito45
Awesome concept !!!! Thx !!!
ztcrown 10 months ago
Couldnt you just create energy by making turbins turn using very powerfull magnets?.
AwakenFromTheSlumber 10 months ago
@AwakenFromTheSlumber
Precisely, Super conductive magnets with HTS wires... actually, this is just a concept animation from while back, Actual design of Maglev Wind Turbine is completely different, complete levitation ( no friction) and much more efficient. Thx !!!
ztcrown 10 months ago
@ztcrown but it seems quite simple to create mega-powerfull magnets and just have them spinning turbines all day every day forever to generate electricity, why cant we do that?.
AwakenFromTheSlumber 10 months ago
@AwakenFromTheSlumber
well, carbon fiber air foils will create more torque with wind helping it to spin...
ztcrown 10 months ago
@ztcrown I am all for this kind of stuff, we need be be investing in Wind, Wave, Tidal, Soler, Geo-thermal, Hydrogen as well as developing fully operational Nuclear Fusion plants.
AwakenFromTheSlumber 10 months ago
@AwakenFromTheSlumber
Correct !!! I with you all the way...
ztcrown 10 months ago
Where can I get some of those frictionless gears? I've got a perpetual motion machine I'm working on...
nyrtz2me 10 months ago 2
@nyrtz2me
Actually, no gears. no center axis... no touching parts, similar to brush-less motor/generator.. It's levitated...
ztcrown 10 months ago
looks really heavy
abobjenkins 10 months ago
thats huge
LOLOLOL32123 10 months ago
@LOLOLOL32123
Bigger the better !!!!
ztcrown 10 months ago
Air cushion would work too.
lunhil12 10 months ago
@lunhil12
we actually use that concept. w w w . solving.com
ztcrown 10 months ago
Neat idea but it looks very unstable! One small wobble and the unit would topple over.
Wazabooz 10 months ago
@Wazabooz
well, this animation is couple of years old. New design incorporates axial stabilizer magnets.
ztcrown 10 months ago
no put cities on it!.....ooo Venice... what a thought..cities on the ocean, Meglev under the ocean..hmm
archsticks 10 months ago
@archsticks
LOL !!!
ztcrown 10 months ago
Now this is the way they we should be thinking about Wind Energy,.. Bigger means serving more people,== Elementry Watson! then next another and another out in the country.... maybe whole cities can be built on top of these things...beats the ol' 1970's still using in 2011= Propella on a stick' by far......
archsticks 10 months ago
@archsticks
Right on !!!!!
ztcrown 10 months ago
Then under the turbine are the magnets and coil´s, the magnetic shaft and the non magnetic gears and the magnetic fiel generated by the electrons fluid make this wind operated turbine and her generator case fundation, i build a similar long ago, i add some water spray to generate wind courrens, then i mix magnetic dust on the ground and ,then i use zink batterys under the axle and coiled with copper, in this way i build a battery charger moved by air and over 6 aaa battery´s
was a great toy
MICMECMEXICALI 10 months ago
@MICMECMEXICALI
Correct !!! super conductive magnets with HTS wires ....
ztcrown 10 months ago
@InsaneBurrito45
and then have mirrors around the area pointing at those solar panels
ThyKraken 10 months ago
plans to build one when?
greasertv 10 months ago
@greasertv
ASAP !!! just need some $ with lots of zeros ... lol. Actually working on few project...
ztcrown 10 months ago
I made a small version of this a few years ago that was about 4 feet across. I came to the conclusion after testing mine that this type of windmill is superior. WOuld kill less birds and would have alot more power. Glad to see I was on the right track. Gotta build another one and show it! Great idea! Thumbs up! When is one of these going to be built?
woodentoolcompany 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't buy the stats. Physical limitation (betz's Law) says how much wind power can be extracted from the wind which is 59%.
What's the difference between this and a few 500KW rotors with the same cross section? Also, wind turbines don't need outside power as is alleged. No more than this system would. Global is misspelled.
Looks like SCAM to me. Does NOT pass smell test. No numbers up to show the x-section of his system how much land that takes versus the x section of typical rotors.
datruthiness 10 months ago
Sierra Vista AriZOna?!? WHY?
DancingSpiderman 11 months ago 2
@DancingSpiderman
why not, That's where I am from . LOL ...
ztcrown 10 months ago 7
@ztcrown I enjoy your video. I live in Glendale AZ. I didn't know the landscape in Sierra Vista was so lush with green fields. But the landscape is missing mexicans escaping into the U.S. That city... is it Phoenix or Tucson? The vid is cool.
I'm hoping for a non-turbine form of power generation, one that makes use of the Vacuum Energy Density/nuclear energy conversion that occurs at the surface boundary of molecules. A means of rectification of current flow needs to be developed though.
DancingSpiderman 10 months ago
I'm sooo glad to see this. The friction from wind turbine motion has been eating me alive.
P. S: I am easily eaten alive.
1iNova 11 months ago
@1iNova ROFLMAO, I nearly just spat my dinner out.......sarcasm rocks! ;-)
StevesProjects 10 months ago
Supported by huge rare earth magnetic bearings :-) Who controls the entire planet supply already.? China. It's nice to see disruptive technological concepts but in reality, if a revolutionary power generation technology was developed based around massive consumption of rare earth elements, it would be for the exclusive advantage of the Chinese domestic economy, and banned from export anywhere else. The Chinese are much more forward thinking than the West, and have predicted this scenario already
toranamunter 11 months ago
didn't see how big it was till i saw the reference of the heli above it
chickenpoper 11 months ago
DAMN that is huge if only they had one
aForkandaSpoon 11 months ago