Tesla patented this almost 100 years ago, interesting concept if I understand it correctly. This could reduce the bird chopping ginsu blades and low frequency thumping of the current turbines we are using. It is probably much safer for all involved also if you have ever seen one of the current style turbines self destruct.
Bladeless fans on the market for home use; had never seen one, until recently and they are quite amazing and have a fine asthetic, especially, for a fan.
Sounds like they are planning on marketing a version for homes and farms based on what I read at their website:
“Reduced life-cycle costs make the unit desirable for urban rooftops and for use where support and maintenance infrastructure is limited.”
If they can make the technology work and cost competitive, we will see things like this on rooftops across America.
A very big if.
Dyson may have something to say about this.
Already selling a home based product.
Neither the picture, the diagrams or the explanation provide meaningful description of how this works. None demonstrate airflow transference to torque or even direction of flow. Can anyone explain this better?
1) If it has a rotating turbine-driveshaft, even internal, you can’t say that it has “no moving parts”.
2) Those wind screens will significantly reduce the energy available.
3) The “bird kill” thing is way overblown anyway; outside of Altamont Pass, which was built in just about the worst place you could put a wind farm with just the worst turbine design you could have used, it’s a minor issue.
There actually is a wind power generator system with no moving parts (with the possible exception of pumps), although it’s not a turbine. There’s a type of electrostatic wind generator. Water droplets are allowed to blow off from sharp protrusions at high altitude. They land on another electrode or on the ground, building up an electrostatic potential. That is, to say, any small natural negative charge on the tower tends to negatively charge the droplets due to the tight field lines, which amplifies the charge differential when they’re blown away. The wind does the work of separating charge by pulling charged water droplets off. I’ve seen one design proposal for this that suggests condensing the water and using the system for desalination as well.
Additional link:
http://www.physorg.com/news192426996.html
I’d like to point out the opposite use of this device, and one that may be just as valuable.
That is, as created, it turns airflow into mechanical energy. Why not use it to turn mechanical energy into airflow?
A conventional, and popular, device that does this right now is the centrifugal fan, as is used in swamp coolers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_fan
But there may also be a future for centrifugal fans in a new class of aircraft, called the FanWing, which is alleged to be more efficient than a helicopter, with greater lift, quieter, and mechanically simpler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanwing
Now here’s the big question: How does the flow rate of a *reversed* bladeless wind turbine compare to that of a bladed centrifugal fan?
If it is as good as, or better than a centrifugal fan, it could very well end up producing powered flight in an aircraft.
Vertical axis windmills should be looked into more. They go back thousands of years and I doubt they will chop up birds. Much simpler to build. Build them at ground level, don't mess with expensive towers. I would build two or three close to the ground instead of one tower. I would use tough nylon canvas for sails. It could be made very cheap
And they are good for supplying a houses electricity...some of it at least
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnJ3apXUNcI
Figure 1 A Sketch of an early Persian Vertical Axis Windmill.
It’s a Tesla Turbine. Experimenters have been building them for years. Google “Tesla Turbine” or look it up on YouTube.
Bump for later reading
This is to no poster in particular but just a note on a common misperception regarding patents.
One can’t generally patent an idea or an effect. One can patent an application of an idea if the idea and the application are described in such a way that there is only one device that would result from that idea (an embodiment). If one describes the idea but not the application and so tries to patent the idea, it usually isn’t recognized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_%28patent%29#Basic_types_and_categories
Sure a bird pinned to the screen as the jet rises to 40,000 will not be harmed.
Sure a bird pinned to the screen as the jet rises to 40,000 will not be harmed.
Great idea. Say, I have a Tesla electric car. Maybe I can mount one of these turbine wind generators on the roof and after the car gets up to cruising speed, it’ll kick in and charge my battery. This could double my mileage on trips over 100 miles. Hmmm... only one problem. Then where would I put my dog kennel?