Vertical Axis Wind Turbine - Russian Design

[2007cm2007]

" I MUST BREAK YOU"

[STRIBOGEU]

Wind Turbines

SRC "Vertical" Ltd.

(Miass, Kreis Tscheljabinsk, Ural, Russland)

[graphicboy1985]

i can see the wind on the trees ripping of the leafs lol

[70pda]

anyone tried___ w w w diymagneticmotor com ?

[derman077]

The way you say turbine makes me think of turbin. I would now like to see a turbin with a propeller like the beenie cap. ps. nice generator.

[Fishstickification]

I wish I had a 3kV Turban.. :(

[ufoengines]

Where can I buy one?

[ufoengines]

Now that what I wanted to build! Never could get mine to work.

Where do you buy one?

[KonaChuck22]

These VAWT, vertical axis wind turbines are never used commercially because they just don't make economic sense. A fun DIY home project but... Fully half of the turbine is traveling against the direction of the wind.

[dl7und]

@KonaChuck22 Ah, right: So all the videos of commercial VAWTs here on Youtube are just fun DIY home projects. And they probably all have mounted motors to move them, if "fully half" the turbine moves against the wind - something God would never allow...

Are you an Ark designer by chance?

[iulian28ti]

hmmm, it's unloaded, but still moving good

[Johnnymushio]

"there is no wind" *wind gusts* *people laugh*

[buddcinder]

Just putting out a couple of ideas. The longer it takes for the US to solve its energy problem, the more money my country will make in the meantime selling power and oil !!

[gmcannon]

If your from saudi arabi your country should be buying up all the alternative energy it can so when your oil cache runs out you will own the worlds electricity instead of being a dumb sand rat and building hotels hoping your economy will thrive off tourism. Talk about a retarded prince.

[buddcinder]

No dude I'm from Canada and the power bill that the US owes us is huge.

[ldc122]

GO NUCLEAR

[pablofortinero91]

chernobyl suggest you something?

or nuclear waste?

[fakiir]

nuclear is the only reasonable answer in the long run. do some research on the various technologies and then on economies of scale, then make informed comments.

only downside to nuclear is the long time it takes to build a new reactor, 10 years till operation from groundbreaking. and in the US, almost 10 years of regulatory red tape and civilian protests based on junk science and hype. before plans can even be approved. long story short: we (America) are doomed by our own stupidity.

[pablofortinero91]

i dont care economy. i only care a clean and safe planet. nuclear energy is dangerous and dirty.

[fakiir]

which makes you an idealist dreamer. that attitude is dangerous, it leads to stagnation and constant return to old ways of thinking, because flower power and free love cannot change society if it cost less to do it how its always been done. the only way to a cleaner planet is to understand and harness market forces to make the green way the economically smart way.

nuclear is the greenest of green energy sources with the least number of drawbacks compared to all but solar.

[pablofortinero91]

first , i am not a hipi, that of flower power doesnt fit me. i am just saying that nuclear energy is dangerous, because the material used is radioactive, wich brings cancer and other things, and wind, hidroelectrical, or solar power dont . i am gonna ask you something, what do you prefer, living next to a nuclear reactor, or living next to an eolic turbin? (considering you want to live a lot of years), just that. i think our health is up to everething

[fakiir]

i wouldn't mind a reactor in my backyard. at least that means i would rarely have to worry about power outage from a storm, the lines around the generation station are fixed first =D. and the health concerns are unfounded.

i would also love to have a giant turbine spinning in my view as well. some people dont like they way they look. i love them.

[pablofortinero91]

ok. me too loves the eolic giant turbines. i dont like nuclear thats all-

[buddcinder]

There is enough energy in the tides to power the earth many times over! There is enough energy in the wind above 200 ft to power the earth many times over.

[fakiir]

while this is true. It is impractical to build enough turbines to power everything. you would have to have massive battery banks (or capacitors, or what ever other new technology there is for energy storage... hydrogen and fuelcells, etc.) to take up the slack for whole regions when the wind stops blowing in a specific area or when a storm blows up and requires the turbines to shut down.

distributed generation is the future. with buildings and homes built from the start to power themselves.

[buddcinder]

Underwater turbines that capture the tidal currents(not the waves) would not have to be shut down ever unless for repair. As for wind we would need the ability high speed systems to compliment the low speeds for when there are storms. Large prop turbines shut down and highspeed vawts start working.

[fakiir]

Ok, here's the thing. underwater turbines are great if you live within a few hundred miles of the coast. past that and problems of long range transmission make the power fizzle out.

as for building 2 sets of wind turbines, nope. no government on earth will be silly enough to pay for double the capacity. the easiest solution is large scale storage, which we currently do not have the technology or the production capacity to make reasonable.

[utanja]

Why don't you send him some money so he can perform all these tests for you.

[windpowerrocks]

check out my wind power vids...

[mechtech2004]

Wind blows horizontal, to date the most efficient wind turbines are the horizontal type designs NOT the vertical or (helix type)shown here. Horiz. turbines have the most sweep area per blade diameter, thus creating the maximum torque at low wind speeds or highter. Helix or vertical wind turbines are the least efficient, in reguards to torque or useable power output!!All of these other vertical turbine designs look nice (for show) but are impractical for any kind of sufficient power generation.

[utanja]

You need to explain this to engineers who do not understand this. Apparently they're producing VAWTs superior in performance and maintenance to HAWTs. Maybe they need to be reprimanded such that they stay within your perception of reality.

[fakiir]

the attraction of VAWTs is their simplicity and ability to extract energy from wind at low altitudes and high turbulence. such as on the roof of a house. HAWTs are well suited for industrial utility company power generation, and smaller scale for farms or residences with lots of room and few obstructions to slow the wind.

VAWT technology would be a good urban solution allowing every house and building in the world to generate some of its own power. not much, but better than nothing.

[Kenzofeis]

"and may work, as it spins a lot, just like the toxic gas engines Bill O'Reiley on Fox News Channel and the Glenn Beck on CNN"

x)

[pwnage0013]

I want one!!!!!

[papafaya]

whats the wind speed re quad for that

[seshkanuri]

2 Meters/Sec

[papafaya]

thanks for your answer,at that wind speed how much it produce

[seshkanuri]

This unit on test was producing 200W. But this is a very small unit with 4 Ft dia blades

[papafaya]

our company name is FREE ENERGY MALDIVES,as we are from MALDIVES,AS IN OUR COUNTRY WE DON'T GET HIGH WIND SPEED,so at that wind speed we like to have 3kw turbine

[locouk]

Wouldn't want to stagger into one after a few beers!

[no1bundit]

Very smart and practice turbine.

[inPB]

Are they are in mass production?

[inPB]

Smart design!