Bladeless Wind turbine ?? Feasible or Total Fraud ? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Icarus
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 03:14:39 pm
content: Bladeless Wind turbine ?? Feasible or Total Fraud ?http://www.vortexbladeless.com/home.phpWhat do you think ?

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 03:18:34 pm
content: They should develop a decent website first.Alexander.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 03:38:13 pm
content: Quote from: Icarus on May 18, 2015, 03:14:39 pmThat there's not enough information to make a call either way. They're obviuously after investors but I wouldn't put money into something like this without at least an outline of how this is meant to work, and the page I expected to see that just told me about the size of the market...

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 03:45:36 pm
content: It is true that wind whips around chimneys, exerting high twisting forces in the process. Engineers need to consider this during design. I would not have considered the proposed design to be as efficient as others that use some form of blade or sail though. In Milton Keynes we have an array of wind turbine designs present. Conventional tri-blade 'propeller' designs dominate. We have some vertical turbines that have three thin vertical blades supported between top and bottom mounts but these are rarely seen spinning so either they are suffering maintenance issues, are in the wrong location, or are not that great at catching the wind.Wind tunnel testing proves or disproves designs and I would have expected the wind power industry to have a pretty firm grip on the cost benefit analysis of differing wind energy collector systems. There is much research being done on propeller and aerofoil designs in both boat and aviation applications. The wind turbine brigade also benefit from this.Aurora

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 03:52:37 pm
content: Some more info:http://www.treehugger.com/wind-technology/vortex-vertical-bladeless-wind-turbine.htmlIt does not spin, it waves in the windAurora

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 03:54:07 pm
content: I detect a whiff of something....."To demonstrate the feasibility of this technology, dozens of wind tunnel tests has been carried out. Field tests are currently being performed with scaled models."No mention of any results or data, if test results looked good they would have this thing wrapped up in patents and then off to sell the concept to a real manufacturer.Now if the results were poor, inconclusive or "well it span and the voltmeter moved" then off we go to crowd funding.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 03:59:23 pm
content: I can see them snapping in two due to fatigue from flexing. I have seen wind turbines that have no blades tried in the past but they use a proper turbine where the air was sucked through them by the wind, as I have not seen any since I assume they failed due to poor efficiency or high manufacture costs.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 04:06:33 pm
content: It's an interesting concept.I've often watched the 200 foot tall fir trees next to my house waving in high winds and wondered if there was any way to capture that energy.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 04:14:09 pm
content: It seems possible, but there seem like very significant factors to resolve such as stress/longevity and how exactly do you capture energy from a slightly-moving blade with practical efficiency?

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 04:29:47 pm
content: With sea 'snakes' that have small angular movements designers have used hydraulics and pistons to drive the hydraulic fluid through energy extraction mechanisms such as fluid turbines. No idea what Vortex are proposing though.Aurora

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 04:42:11 pm
content: More fundamentally, it's hard to see how these stack up against a conventional turbine in watts per dollar simply because the wind area intercepted by them is far far smaller. A conventional turbine with 75m radius intercepts 17,671 sq. m. Even if you build a 150m vortex device and the vortex effect somehow captures energy up to 10m out, you're still intercepting an order of magnitude less wind. Even with 80% total savings per unit, you still come out behind if you need ten times as many units for the same generating capacity, even if you assume that the vortex unit captures energy from the wind as efficiently as a conventional turbine.

author: Dave
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 04:45:17 pm
content: From what I can see, the phenomenon they are planning to exploit is calledvortex shedding.It might not need lubrication or "moving" parts, but this thing is going to wear out the materials in a matter of months. I also fail to see how they are going to make any efficient form of energy harvesting "without moving parts". Piezo effect? Good luck with that.Interesting fact: You might see a helical shape wrapped around your car's antenna. Its purpose there is to combat this effect.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 06:12:12 pm
content: You also see a helix fence around some chimneys for the same reasonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_sheddingAurora

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 06:33:12 pm
content: Anyone proposing a wind turbine that is not a 3-bladed, horizontal axis turbine (HAWT) with the blades operating upwind of the tower has some *major* explaining of their technology to do. That website isn't even close to the mark. The "no moving parts" feature is highly, highly suspect.There are many manufacturers of commercial wind turbines. They have all arrived at the same engineering conclusion as to what turbine offers the greatest efficiency for the physics and materials available - that is the three-bladed HAWT. This "vortex" is the equivalent of a new airliner manufacturer popping up out of the blue and presenting a triplane as their design.A wind turbine's output is largely defined by its hub height and swept area. This turbine sweeps very little area - yet another reason for it to be highly suspect.The vertical ("Darius") style wind turbines have major issues with bearing life. Even the most optimistic wind proponents consider them to be a failed technology.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 06:52:43 pm
content: Having recently been through sales, marketing & entrepreneurship course, i can understand why the website is like that.They are basically looking for people interested in investing into them.Unfortunately, what attracts investors is at the same time confusing and meaningless to engineering people.At the course they answered my doubts that i shouldn't consider how i see it, and instead consider how the audience should see it....Which does not change the fact that the site makes no sense.But with that in mind, i suspect they might be on to something interesting.At least it sounds plausible.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 07:01:14 pm
content: What they are doing is trying to appeal to people who know *nothing* about renewables, much less investing about them. They've had clearly had to resort to crowd funding after everyone in the industry showed them the door - or never let them in to present in the first place.It's SolarRoadways all over again.A wind turbine with essentially no swept area is an extraordinary claim. I hope that anyone who invests demands and receives extraordinary proof before parting with their money.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 07:17:11 pm
content: This is not "turbine" by definition. Since what time flexing rod became a turbine? If there is no rotation, it is not turbine.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 07:20:18 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on May 18, 2015, 07:17:11 pmOK. "Silly Straw" it is.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 08:02:50 pm
content: Well firstly, the job of a wind turbine is to convert wind energy to electrical energy.The potentially available power in a wind stream is given byW= ½AGv²whereAis the flowing area,Gis the mass flow per unit cross section of flowing area andvis the wind speed.It follows that the power captured by a turbine increases in proportion to the cross section it can present to the wind. Larger area equals more power. How much area can a vertical pole present (even allowing for "virtual" area due to flow dynamics)?The principle of causing something to vibrate or oscillate due to air or some other fluid flowing over it is not new. Google for "vortex flow meter" for many references. But is this principle an efficient means of power conversion?Lastly, how is the vibration or wobbling of the pole to be converted to electric power? The web site says "no gears or bearings". What kind of electrical generator has no gears or bearings? Presumably one that doesn't rotate. So this would seem to be an interesting and unexplained element of the system. How does it work?

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 09:01:28 pm
content: Its obvious surely.....its a very large scale piezo crystal generatorAurora

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 09:05:31 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on May 18, 2015, 08:02:50 pmOne of the articles I read about this said that they were planning to mount magnets to the base of the oscillating section just above fixed coils in the base. That particular article made it sound like the flexure point was somewhere in the middle of the hollow tube that forms the oscillating upper section, so the bottom of the moving section would have enough swing to move the magnets across the coils. Don't recall where that article was, though.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 09:12:25 pm
content: If they're using a form of linear generator like they describe, they won't have the advantages that traditional wind turbines have with their gearboxes, which is the frequency matching using a variable gearbox, so the turbine can be connected directly to the AC output and generate 50Hz AC. I guess they plan to generate DC, then invert it into AC at some central point. So there's another loss.But yea, when you see such a supposedly world-changing idea funded by crowd funding you start to have doubts.

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 09:31:35 pm
content: Humm... I've seen the same effect in reflective road marker stakes that are placed every 100m or so on NZ country roads. If the wind is blowing in just the right direction they can vibrate quite a bit.Two things I can't yet understandDoesn't it require that the the pivot can only flex in at 90 degrees to the wind, otherwise it will just lie back and not vibrate. If so, how do you turn the base? Maybe you have a ring of hydraulic rams and shut off the pair that are perpendicular to the wind, and take the energy out of the others?Also, wouldn't they be unstable due to the effect of gravity? once it leans to the side it needs a lot of work to stand it back up again, and when it is vertical you have a lot of momentum to tame. Why not suspend it with a pivot at the top, then it will naturally fall back to vertical. It would also make it easier to attach whatever energy extraction is being used to the part that is moving the fastest.Not that I am an engineer or anything...

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2015, 10:42:42 pm
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on May 18, 2015, 09:31:35 pmActually, not really. See the other recent thread onthe peak current in an RLC circuit when charging a capacitor. It's the same theory.You have a second order under damped harmonic system that needs to vibrate. It is not hinged as such, it actually needs some springiness so it can spring from side to side. The wind flowing over it is trying to make it vibrate, and the power being drawn out of it for electricity generation is damping the vibrations down. The momentum is essential and is equivalent to the inductance in the RLC circuit. The springiness is equivalent to the capacitance and the power draw is the resistance.

author: eas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2015, 01:14:06 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on May 18, 2015, 06:33:12 pmConvergence on an economically viable local optimum doesn't mean a global optima has been reached, nor does it mean that there aren't other economically viable local optima. In other words, the fact that some wind generator design have failed, while another has succeeded doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile to develop other approaches.It certainly is foolish though to invite head-to-head comparisons with an established technology, on its own terms, without make a case in those terms, which seems to be what these people are doing.Rather than playing at showing how smart we are by shooting ideas in the head, lets try another game and ask: under what conditions could this practical and economically viable? Those who like to shit on things can still play at this new game. All you have to do is start with an obvious flaw, and then dig deeper.For example, The reason for convergence on the three bladed wind turbine isn't just about physics and materials. Economics play a role too, and those economics extend beyond the turbine blades, gearbox, generator, and tower. The cost of infrastructure, the roads, power lines, etc to install and operate the towers factor in, as does the cost of land, of meeting regulatory issues, etc. Most of these will also tip things in favor of fewer bigger turbines.So then, to see where an alternative to the big triple bladed turbine might be viable, we should consider conditions do these other factors work against fewer bigger turbines? Putting a tower in swampy coastal areas might adversely impact the economics of the tower base, though I'd guess that the cost of roads and power lines would also suffer the same fate. Siting huge towers in developed areas could be challenging for various reasons, meanwhile, the cost of connection to the grid might be lower, so more smaller "blades" might be viable. What about applications where altering the flow of wind over surfaces is desirable in its own right? Could these work in horizontal orientation on the corners of skyscrapers, on smokestacks and other towers? Could farmers ring their fields with these as windbreaks the way they used to plant poplar trees? Could these work on a much smaller scale?Oh, and even as direct competitors to wind turbines, the question isn't really whether one of these is more efficient than a traditional turbine, or whether one of these can generate as much power as a traditional turbine, the question is whether the return on every $1 invested in installing these is better or worse than $1 invested a conventional wind turbine (or other source of electrical energy).

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2015, 03:51:58 am
content: Quote from: eas on May 19, 2015, 01:14:06 amYou have apparently missed out on many decades of wind turbine development. There is very little that has been left untested. You are also ignoring Occam's Razor. Most of all, you are ignoring the fundamental physics of capturing power from the wind. Ian already posted the equation for your reference. Call it "shitting" if you want, but the physics are the physics. The power generated by a wind turbine is proportional to the swept area times the square of the wind speed. Period. This device's area of intercept isn't 10% of a conventional turbine. There is your fundamental flaw.The the P ~ AxV^2 issue applies to all wind energy collection devices - not just HAWT. To capture 1MW of mechanical energy, one needs to intercept at least 1MW worth of wind. Then there's the little matter of converting mechanical energy into electrical power. Rotating generators are OUTSTANDINGLY efficient. Efficiencies are easily over 95%. Big generators of several hundred MWe are approaching 99% efficiency. Good luck beating that with some type of linear generator. They've used these "linear" types of generators with numerous tide power projects - every one of which has tanked.This contraption completely flunks the sniff test. No one is obligated to investigate any thing more. It is solely the proposer's responsibility to present scientific evidence in the form of literature and data. Then they must demonstrate this device can do what it claims and present the device for independent verification. That does not require crowd funding. They could build a test apparatus out of plywood and box fans. The power generation apparatus is equally trivial. It is of little mystery to me why none of this data is being presented and it is not being developed via conventional channels: because it likely is a joke. But with a couple million in crowd funding from the unwitting and unwary, it can be a nice make-work project for a couple of years until the inevitable failure. Then the usual suspects move on to another scheme ...err... invention ... and on to other marks ...I meant... "investors."Everyone of these schemes takes capital that could be used for good works in the field of renewable energy.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2015, 05:34:20 am
content: I wish them luck with their giant, wiggling dildo farms.

author: mzzj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2015, 05:54:53 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on May 18, 2015, 09:12:25 pmTraditional wind turbines don't control speed by gearbox. Gearbox is to get higher rpm's for the generator so that you can use smaller and cheaper generator. Direct drive wind turbines wont need the gearbox but the generator is bigger and more costly, often using expensive and un-ecological rare earth neodymium magnets.Othervise AFAIK you are right in that linear generators cant be directly connected to AC grid. I am not sure if that is any problem, direct connection with wind turbines is not without problems either and if I remember correctly most of the new wind turbines are variable speed electric frequency converter types.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2015, 06:25:30 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on May 19, 2015, 05:34:20 amThere is probably some serious cash to be made, unique tourist attraction.So I have read the thread, given a choice I'd go for blades. The ability to rotate is just so useful.I really hate when people put out ideas without real numbers to back them up.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2015, 09:20:43 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on May 19, 2015, 09:05:48 amSoo glad our moral superior is here,with his daily in-situ improvisation of his personal "point"

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2015, 10:32:04 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on May 19, 2015, 09:05:48 amAnd where would that be? To get much wind you need to be in an exposed open space, with a strong consistent prevailing wind. No point putting these in the bottom of a sheltered valley or in the doldrums. There are already large turbines in Antarctica - seehttp://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/documents/PCAS_12/Windmills%20.pdf- and any wind turbine won't be of any use on the moon.But I think everybody is busy wondering if this is a "a suitcase, but with wheels on it!" sort of solution. If it truly is such a superior idea/implementation, why the heck did they take so long to be invented? What is the enabling technology that makes this practical today but it wasn't 10 years (or 50 years) ago...

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2015, 01:29:09 pm
content: Lets just cut to the chase and make a vortex roadway. Why the hell not?

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2015, 02:12:23 pm
content: Something else just occurred to me. This thing oscillates...it's going to have a natural frequency. In other words, it will only work at certain wind speeds. :::sigh:::

author: Asmyldof
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2015, 11:50:30 pm
content: I am absolutely looking forward to these things being built 80m high, weighing in at tons and then:Vibrating certain parts of the surrounding landscape into a more compact form than naturally intended.Fatigueing out and toppling over.And loads of crowd-funders finding out why the million-dollar funding houses and investors quickly passed on a nice slidey-swooshy website with little text and exactly no usable information.Assuming they weren't sold to a poor farmer as a good way to earn extra cash, to find his cattle with fibration-broken-legs a week later. (Or a bad case of Art-Deco-Pole-Squishing a couple of months later)

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2015, 05:33:33 am
content: This article has some decent commentary and the included videos offer a few interesting tidbits:http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewire/commentary/you-should-probably-stay-skeptical-about-this-bladeless-wind-turbine.htmlThey're claiming to be able to capture 40% of the intercepted wind energy (Betz limit, which is the theoretical max, is 59%), but no mention of the effective size of the intercepted area or what their conversion efficiency is. Conventional turbines, per Wikipedia, have an end-to-end efficiency of 44-47%. Still no details on the mechanics of the generator, although apparently they are or were working on improved piezo materials as an alternative to the magnets.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2015, 08:25:14 am
content: Quote from: Icarus on May 18, 2015, 03:14:39 pmObvious crowdfunding scam.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2015, 09:53:25 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on May 19, 2015, 01:29:09 pmDONE:

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2015, 11:33:18 am
content: Piezo generator, REALLY ?I was only kidding when I suggested that earlier in the thread !I wonder what the noise issues might be as well. As many will know, when you start interfering with air flow or trying to move air, you can generate quite a lot of noise. I worry when I think of resonant structures as many designers have to avoid such for structural and accoustic reasons. Are the poles going to resonate at audio frequencies I wonder.......imagine a hundred of these things 'singing', all at slightly different frequencies.......a natural orchestra guaranteed to send anyone within earshot barmey in no time at all.They will also need to consider icing in winter. Icing affects conventional wins turbines and would change the profile and weight distribution of the vertical 'straw', with potential efficiency reduction and the risk of falling ice on anyone below. Heating the straw is an option but this reduces overall efficiency. Maybe the 'straws' natural vibration would stop ice crystals forming ? Harsh environment testing would certainly be a good idea.Aurora

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2015, 05:36:37 pm
content: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/537721/bladeless-wind-turbines-may-offer-more-form-than-function/Bladeless Wind Turbines May Offer More Form Than FunctionStartup Vortex Bladeless makes a turbine that looks intriguing, but it may not solve wind power’s challenges.By Phil McKenna on May 27, 2015WHY IT MATTERSWind could supply almost 20 percent of the total global energy market by 2030, up from 3 percent today.Vortex says its bladeless turbines will generate electricity for 40 percent less than the cost of power from conventional wind turbines.?Wind power has become a legitimate source of energy over the past few decades as larger, more efficient turbine designs have produced ever-increasing amounts of power. But even though the industry saw a record $99.5 billion global investment in 2014, turbine growth may be reaching its limits.Transportation is increasingly challenging because of the size of the components: individual blades and tower sections often require specialized trucks and straight, wide roads. Today’s wind turbines are also incredibly top heavy. Generators and gearboxes sitting on support towers 100 meters off the ground can weigh more than 100 tons. As the weight and height of turbines increase, the materials costs of wider, stronger support towers, as well as the cost of maintaining components housed so far from the ground, are cutting into the efficiency benefits of larger turbines.The alternative energy industry has repeatedly tried to solve these issues to no avail. But the latest entry promises a radically different type of wind turbine: a bladeless cylinder that oscillates or vibrates.Spanish startup Vortex Bladeless has developed turbines that harness vorticity, the spinning motion of air or other fluids. When wind passes one of the cylindrical turbines, it shears off the downwind side of the cylinder in a spinning whirlpool or vortex. That vortex then exerts force on the cylinder, causing it to vibrate. The kinetic energy of the oscillating cylinder is converted to electricity through a linear generator similar to those used to harness wave energy.David Yáñez, one of the company’s cofounders, first came across the concept as a student studying the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Washington. The bridge collapsed in 1940 due to excessive vibrations formed by the spinning motion of wind as it blew past the bridge and is a textbook engineering failure. Yáñez, however, learned a different lesson. “This is a very good way to transmit energy from a fluid to a structure,” he says.Vortex’s lightweight cylinder design has no gears or bearings. Yáñez says it will generate electricity for 40 percent less than the cost of power from conventional wind turbines. The company has received $1 million in private capital and government funding in Spain and is seeking another $5 million in venture capital funding. Yáñez says the company plans to release a four-kilowatt system in 2016 and a much larger one-megawatt device around 2018.The Vortex turbine sounds promising, but like any radical new alternative energy design, bladeless turbines have plenty of skeptics.“If you have a common propeller-type wind turbine, you have a big area swept by the blades,” says Martin Hansen, a wind energy specialist at the Technical University of Denmark. “Here you just have a pole.”In addition to capturing less energy, oscillating cylinders can’t convert as much of that energy into electricity, Hansen says. A conventional wind turbine typically converts 80 to 90 percent of the kinetic energy of its spinning rotor into electricity. Yáñez says his company’s custom-built linear generator will have a conversion efficiency of 70 percent.Yáñez concedes that the oscillating turbine design will sweep a smaller area and have a lower conversion efficiency, but says significant reductions in manufacturing and maintenance costs will outweigh the losses.As Vortex builds bigger devices that catch higher-speed winds further from the ground, it will also run up against other challenges inherent to the physics of fluid mechanics. Air or other fluids moving at low speeds past small-diameter cylinders flow in a smooth, constant motion. Increase the diameter of the cylinder and the speed at which the air flows across it, however, and the flow becomes turbulent, producing chaotic eddies or vortices. The turbulent flow causes the oscillating frequency of the cylinder to vary, making it difficult to optimize for energy production.“With very thin cylinders and very slow velocities you get singing telephone lines, an absolutely pure frequency or tone,” says Sheila Widnall, an aeronautics and astronautics professor at MIT. “But when the cylinder gets very big and wind gets very high, you get a range of frequencies. You won’t be able to get as much energy out of it as you want to because the oscillation is fundamentally turbulent.”Widnall also questions the company’s claim that its turbines will be silent. “The oscillating frequencies that shake the cylinder will make noise,” she says. “It will sound like a freight train coming through your wind farm.”Oscillating cylinders are just one of several emerging technologies aimed at harvesting more of the wind for less. Makani Power is developing a tethered “energy kite” (see “Flying Windmills”). It flies in a large circle similar to the tip of a conventional turbine blade while harnessing wind power via smaller onboard turbines. Astro Teller, head of Google X, Google’s semi-secret research facility that acquired Makani in 2013, said in March that the company would soon begin tests of a full-scale, 600-kilowatt kite.John Dabiri, an aeronautics and bioengineering professor at Caltech, is testing different configurations of vertical axis turbines, which are essentially windmills that spin like a merry-go-round rather than on a horizontal axis like a bicycle wheel. Typically wind turbines are placed far apart from each other to optimize energy production. Drawing on the same principles that fish use to conserve energy by schooling, Dabiri found that turbines placed close to each other could produce more energy than those that are far apart.“You can co?rdinate the operation of multiple wind turbines such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” he says.Dabiri says such synergistic effects could also apply to conventional, horizontal axis windmills or even oscillating turbines. The latter pose a greater challenge because the wake of such turbines is very chaotic but also a potential benefit because the wake packs a lot of energy, he says.Much remains to be seen with Vortex’s oscillating turbine, Dabiri says, but he adds that he is excited by the company’s concept. “Anyone who says the three-bladed turbine is the best we can do is lacking in vision.”

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2015, 06:01:40 pm
content: For comparison, Ars Technica has a good if not in-depth article onimproving the economics of conventional wind turbines. While it's a fairly mature technology, there is room to improve the economics, in particular material and installation costs, such that we could see conventional turbines being deployed in areas that don't yet make sense economically.