EEVblog #1271 - 100kW WindWall Generator BUSTED

[Kleinstein]

Windpower seems to have really bad effect on math:
they don't even get the simple mechanical size calculation right.
10x10 units of 24x26 in² is not 96x120 in²        

[Doom-the-Squirrel]

Windpower seems to have really bad effect on math:
they don't even get the simple mechanical size calculation right.
10x10 units of 24x26 in² is not 96x120 in²        

 

This should be a new meme.

[iMo]

In the last picture above they claim "976kWHours @11mph" in 1 year. That is 111W per hour.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

In the last picture above they claim "976kWHours @11mph" in 1 year. That is 111W

And as there are 100 microcubes => 1.1W per microcube

[iMo]

People usually mess pretty freely with "kW", "kWh", "kWhs in 1 year", etc. - it could easily be the guys from American Wind do not care much too..

PS: If I were the lawyer of AW I would claim "Yeah, hmm, yeah, .. 1kW per microcube.., yeah, it was meant 1kWh in 1year, that is how it works in the industry, you know.."

[Kleinstein]

The Americans have the additional problem of working with odd units like BTU in/ft²/F  (not in this context, but this about as bad as it can get).

The problems seem to be deeper than just mixing up units.  There are many parts not making much sense (the size of the wall,  the lower optimal wind speed for the wall unit compared to the cube,  the more linear scaling of power with wind speed)  -- once one starts scaling with the wrong formulas odd things can happen.

Some of there explanations for good efficiency sounds very much like over-unity energy gain crap: use the front fan to pull in the air, so that the later blades can harvest more energy 

[iMo]

What I wanted to indicate above is following - you will not get your money back easily Today's marketeers have got a lot of tricks up their sleeves..

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Some of there explanations for good efficiency sounds very much like over-unity energy gain crap: use the front fan to pull in the air, so that the later blades can harvest more energy 

This is my favourite BS claim: "Traditional wind turbines need tremendous amounts of torque to turn their generators" as if the energy generated and the work required had nothing to do with each other.

[PSR B1257]

A little bit off topic, but maybe a good candidat for a nother video regarding wind energy.
As always, there is no limit for stupidity, as proven by a spanish "invention".
https://vortexbladeless.com/technology-design/

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

As always, there is no limit for stupidity, as proven by a spanish "invention".

Well yeah, the project may be spanish, but you're going to pay for it:

Project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation

As you say, "there is no limit for stupidity" 

[wilfred]

Some of there explanations for good efficiency sounds very much like over-unity energy gain crap: use the front fan to pull in the air, so that the later blades can harvest more energy 

This is my favourite BS claim: "Traditional wind turbines need tremendous amounts of torque to turn their generators" as if the energy generated and the work required had nothing to do with each other.

I interpreted that to mean this device has low start torque so it can produce some power at low wind speeds. This seems to be the main differentiating characteristic for the little cubes. For small local applications. I did hear the inventor make a statement to the effect that sun and wind don't often overlap so people with more wind than sun can do something local for generating electricity like people do with solar panels. I don't think it qualifies as BS when taken out of the original context.

[VK3DRB]

Their website had grammatical errors on it, a good indication it is dodgy.

It is wonder the company wasn't based in Queensland, Australia's premier state for two-bit scammers, frauds and get-rich-quick schemers. Rick Mayne, a roof tiler, was once worth $50 million, when his unlisted company Split-Cycle Technology raised about $200 million from mum and dad investors by claiming to have invented a revolutionary engine for cars. Mayne’s engine was never used in a car and the company collapsed. The engine was a dud. Even Sir Jack Brabham was fooled into spruiking Mayne's snake oil. Although Mayne never did demonstrate the engine actually powering a car, he did demonstrate a new Lamborghini he'd bought himself from the proceeds. Mayne died in 2011  after which there was some battle going for Mayne's Lamborghini between his Russian defacto and a jailed drug criminal.

Nears its end, Spilt Cycle Technology was raising funds to keep the failed company going with "revolutionary technology" using compressed air in cylinders to powered bicycles .

Most of these type of people have have no scientific or engineering background; and almost always have no relevant education.

[Kilrah]

I interpreted that to mean this device has low start torque so it can produce some power at low wind speeds.

Yeah they start turning, but for nothing. Since power goes with speed cubed at low speed even if they can technically turn there's no significant power to get from that.

[wilfred]

I interpreted that to mean this device has low start torque so it can produce some power at low wind speeds.

Yeah they start turning, but for nothing. Since power goes with speed cubed at low speed even if they can technically turn there's no significant power to get from that.

But that's what it is. Getting what is there to be got is better than not getting it. Significant power is a bit open to being defined by the application.

[Kilrah]

Um yeah.
Just run the numbers - They say it starts at 1.5mph. That's 0.67m/s. Plug that into the formula, you get a theoretical maximum of 0.18W, and 0.107W after Betz's law...
I don't know what application benefits from a 1m^2 wind turbine wall to get 0.1W out.

Say you could do with 50W, you need 7mph already.

Not including all the other loss factors obviously.

They're saying "we start making power earlier than others!" But that's only because the others don't include a range that cannot be useful in the first place. AKA more BS.

[Kleinstein]

Most generators need a minimum speed to get sufficient voltage. So there is practical lower limit for the turbines to produce energy. As the power is low at low speed anyway, there is not much lost if the turbine only starts at 2 m/s instead of 1m/s. At 1/10 the nominal wind speed the power is only 0.1% of nominal at best - usually lower as efficiency is optimized for the higher end. 0.1% may not even be enough power to rotate to turbine to the right direction.

Trying to get more power from low wind is futile. The energy is just not there to harvest. If the power curve goes up slower than V³ to higher wind speeds, this means they have poor efficiency at higher wind speed.  For a real turbine the curve will likely go up even a little steeper than V³. A turbine that is good at any wind speed would approach the V³ law, but that is about the best one can get. Less dependence on wind speed would be from giving away power at high wind, not getting more from low wind.

A slightly similar effect happens with thin film solar cells. They have lower efficiency at high intensity and thus slight less slope in the power versus light curve. This still does not mean they are higher efficiency at low light. They may still be a good choice in lower light conditions, as this is the best they can do.

[wilfred]

Um yeah.
Just run the numbers - They say it starts at 1.5mph. That's 0.67m/s. Plug that into the formula, you get a theoretical maximum of 0.18W, and 0.107W after Betz's law...
I don't know what application benefits from a 1m^2 wind turbine wall to get 0.1W out.

Say you could do with 50W, you need 7mph already.

Not including all the other loss factors obviously.

They're saying "we start making power earlier than others!" But that's only because the others don't include a range that cannot be useful in the first place. AKA more BS.

Don't just call it BS. It's not BS if it is actually true they make power earlier. Just because you want to designate that small amount of power not useful is not enough to justify throwing BS into the pot. They could lock the turbines or turn they device away from the wind and not produce any power. Would that make it satisfy you?

Solar panels start making electricity as soon as the light gets intense enough  would you also argue it's not significant. What's the difference? Solar panels take whatever is there to be got so why not do the same with wind.

I'm assuming the video claims it isn't efficient enough so throwing any energy away as insignificant is only going to make it even less efficient.

One of the applications I heard was to incorporate this cube into buildings to capture the wind striking the face of the building. Now I can't say I know what a breeze against the face of a skyscraper does when it has to move out of the way but I wouldn't be surprise if someone informed me it tries to get past the edge at a much higher velocity.

I'm completely uninterested in joining a frenzy of disdain decrying some claim made. I can see this type of device might have some use if it can generate power at reasonable cost. Putting it on a car sounds ridiculous because it is. I'll let them work on it and develop it and see if anything comes of it. If nothing comes of it then that won't mean it was a bad idea.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Um yeah.
Just run the numbers - They say it starts at 1.5mph. That's 0.67m/s. Plug that into the formula, you get a theoretical maximum of 0.18W, and 0.107W after Betz's law...
I don't know what application benefits from a 1m^2 wind turbine wall to get 0.1W out.

And low power energy harvesting is a bitch, I'd bet it takes more than 0.1W to inject 0.1W into the grid. But maybe they've got that sorted out too, who knows? 

[Kilrah]

Just because you want to designate that small amount of power not useful is not enough to justify throwing BS into the pot.

It does not generate any. There's 0.1W to be had at a theoretical most from the incoming wind, but it's not going to overcome any load, said load including what's needed to get the system in operation.
The friction losses in the generators will be too big for them to even spin. Their claim can not even be valid.

[max_torque]

What a lot of "inventors in sheds" seem to miss, is that for a viable product, you don't care what the rated power of a generating device actually is, no, what actually you care about is the cost per unit power!

Most of these wacky ducted fan schemes fail quite simply because they have a higher $ per kW of installed capacity. 

It's like going to the shops and have having a choice between two chocolate bars, each of identical mass, but one costing more than the other. Irrespective of how many you are buying, 1 or 1000, you'll always chose the cheaper one!

[StillTrying]

There's that many 'simple misunderstandings' of how air, blades and energy works and complete in this American Wind, that I'll have to turn it right up to gas mark #scam.


There's some good comments on the YT.

"If Mr. Yost were telling the truth, a helicopter descending in autorotation should drop like a rock in free-fall, but it doesn't.  In reality, it drops about as fast as a parachute of the same diameter as the main rotor diameter, even though the blade area is but a tiny fraction of the swept area of the rotor disc."

[wilfred]

Just because you want to designate that small amount of power not useful is not enough to justify throwing BS into the pot.

It does not generate any. There's 0.1W to be had at a theoretical most from the incoming wind, but it's not going to overcome any load, said load including what's needed to get the system in operation.
The friction losses in the generators will be too big for them to even spin. Their claim can not even be valid.

OK. This is an argument I don't want to have. I have made the points I wanted to make.I don't think you're wrong so there is nowhere else to go with it.

[vad]

Solar panels start making electricity as soon as the light gets intense enough  would you also argue it's not significant. What's the difference? Solar panels take whatever is there to be got so why not do the same with wind.

The only difference is the cubic law vs linear law for the theoretical maximum power.

10 times drop in light intensity translates into 10 times drop in power that can be absorbed by photovoltaic cell. 10 times slower wind translates into 1000 times less power available from kinetic energy of moving air.

[StillTrying]

I missed this bit were he suggests putting the magic turbeans over a building's air conditioning air outlets to produce electricity, he doesn't seem to realize that blocking the air outlets even partially would waste more energy than is recovered. Intentionally or not, I don't think he could be any closer to an over unity nutter.

https://youtu.be/NcQFRXriVDc?t=123

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I missed this bit were he suggests putting the magic turbeans over a building's air conditioning air outlets to produce electricity

Freakin' Magic Turbeans !!