More vertical wind turbines

[ponyboy]

http://www.windside.com/products.html

:D

[gregorama]

I noticed under "accessories" you can buy just the generator "for those who want to build a unit themselves". Interesting; I want to build the 3500 KG version with a rotating spotlight and wind whistles to piss off my neighbors... :twisted:

[nobleknight]

01-24-06

Hey,

Has anyone actually called www.windside.com to see how much these turbines cost? They look real cool. Their vertical nature should please environmentalists, and be a whole lot safer. I'm just afraid they will be cost prohibitive.

Tom
nobleknight
class 01-15-05

[ponyboy]

I noticed that they didn't have a distributor in the U.S.

Maybe if you became one you could get a good discount. :-)

[ponyboy]

Here's another vertical wind mill. It's hard to tell what the heck it is. It looks more like a sculpture.

http://www.aerotecture.com/

[rreidnauer]

Interesting. From the last photo on their webpage, I think I could build a test model pretty easily. The lexan "wing" makes it easy to see how it's made. I still wonder if these types of windmills can generate much torque.

[ponyboy]

One more! :)

http://www.quietrevolution.co.uk/

[ponyboy]

Another. These look a little larger.

http://www.tmawind.com/

[ponyboy]

And yet still another... :shock:

http://www.mag-wind.com/mw1100.php

[Kama]

As of July 2006, Windside has a distributor in the US.

OK now for the sticker shock. $36,000 for the WS 4C model. A bit out of my price range.

[ponyboy]

:shock: :shock:

[rreidnauer]

OK, Mag-Wind's claims has got me stirred up, so . . . .

I think I might have mentioned my opinion of vertical axle wind turbines (VAWTs) before, but after reading several of the posted website's claims, I want to readdress some of the misconceptions (or flat out lies) advertised there, in hopes it may prevent someone from making a terrible mistake in purchasing one of those units with the misconception that they will be able to generate enough power to be free of the grid.

First, it would be possible to do so, but, a VAWT would have to be so big that it would be far more of an eyesore than a more conventional windmill. Why? Well, there is only so much wattage available from the wind, and it's based on two figures. Windspeed and the two dimensional area swept by the windmill's blades. A traditional windmill has nearly 100% of it's blade surface harvesting the wind's energy, but VAWTs typically only have 50%, since half of it is spinning into the wind. That picture on Mag-Wind website of the roof mounted turbine makes me laugh. It would only produce such a small amount of energy, I'd doubt you'd even notice a change in your electric bill. The comparison chart at the bottom is such a load of horse stuff, that I dismiss any further claims they make.

Now, I know it's the newest thing going lately, and the businesses are just making it sound so good, but if you take the time to do the research, you'll find that they just can't cut it. It's just physics and mathmatics. Just ask yourself one question. Why don't the commercial wind generation sites use VAWTs?

Do yourself a world of good, and do the homework before spending your hard-earned greenbacks.

[kyle]

Rod,

I was thinking the same thing regarding the commercial windmills sites. We have several windmill farms around here and recently a foreign plant just opened to manufacture these windmills locally. And they are NOT vertical windmills. If vertical windmills worked so well they would use them.

[pdthct]

http://www.magenn.com/index.php

[freakapotamus311]

While there may be some major hangups in the "greenback" areas, this type of thing is what the world needs. I don't intend to sound overly ambitious or gut-wrenchingly liberal, but fossil fuels for energy should become extinct. Of course the plastics industry and other petroleum-based goods could still be viable (hemp is quite another discussion topic all together) under contemporary policies, but petroleum-based fuel economies DESPERATELY NEED to take a hard nose dive back to the creatacous period.

Wind and solar driven energies have been realized and need to be explored. I'm only assuming (based on media coverage) that R&D cost is the only current holdup. PHooey. Policy is driving our economies to the brink and maybe wind won't help recover, but it may very well help other more desperate extremes settle down.

[PapaJoe]

Papa Joe here in Chicago ... I'm a retired AT&T tech presently working as senior tech at standbypowersys.com ... for the past several years I've been working on backup power systems for Nuclear Power Plants in 3 states, numerous telcos and the banking industry, including installing the backup power system for J.P.Morgan Chase, the worlds largest networking data center. My renewable energy projects include the beta testing thru actual installations of Professor Bill Beckers (owner of aerotecture.com) vertical wind turbines. Bill is a great guy, a Phd in Aerotecture, and has just retired from teaching renewable energy now devoting his effort full time in the production of his patented wind turbine. Rod is correct in that no one wind turbine will get you off-grid. My most successfull installations include combinations of wind turbines, PV panels, geothermal mass, stationary battery strings, and generators. Of course what I do is extreme because the value of the data/power I am backing up is extremely high but I do have residential installations that are working well with reasonable ROI numbers. My website is standbypowersys.com ... Ride Free, -Take Risks, and Enjoy Life -Papa Joe

[ponyboy]

Here's a little video of the Aerotecture being installed on a roof.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZQPQkhDE8eY

[PapaJoe]

Thanks Ponyboy ... I hadn't realized that we were "UTube" famous ... this video clip was taken during our installation at Roundlake, IL., two years ago. We put this together for Bill Beckers attorney and the reason for the cinder blocks (to hold the wind turbines down) is because we were restricted by local juristiction building codes that prohibited us from mounting directly to the roof. Here's a couple more pictures that I took at this site that show the solar panels and the construction of the turbines back at our shop.

http://s97.photobucket.com/albums/l216/joecardone/Wind%20Turbines/

[ponyboy]

:D

You know you've made it big time when your on UTube. 8) Although now that Google has bought it I wonder if it's going to go Down the Tube. :wink:

Hey PapaJoe, do you know if they will ever make one of these mounted on a pole instead of having a big cage surrounding it?

[PapaJoe]

Sure you can have a wind turbine without a cage ... they have some very cool designs in Denmark, Finland, etc., check out this site ...

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/design/horver.htm

they are way ahead of us man ... the best one I've seen looks like a torch, no cage, tapered and sculptured like a real flame, probably molded polycarbonate. Hey Goomba you gotta read this article that was in Mother Earth News a while back, imagine an S-Rotor with 4 alternators, oh baby ... here's a sample taken from the article ...

""If you're wondering why the large S-rotor has such a high power output, the answer is that we've hooked four alternators to it. Two would normally be sufficient, but we've added two more as brakes. This way, when normal wind devices would have to shut down because of dangerously high wind speeds, our unit can keep right on going to take as much energy as the rushing mass of air can provide.

The price of all that power is surprisingly low. Since the S-rotor can be built from readily accessible materials, its cost will almost always be less than $100 (not including batteries or inverter. The latter, if required, is the same kind used in a conventional system.) We intentionally purchased all the parts that went into our prototype-alternator, gears

and chain, bearings, pipe, stock rod, screws, bolts, eyebolts, guy wire, turnbuckles, paint and stain (plus miscellaneous springs, wire, etc.)-and spent only $103. Our second, larger rotor cost less than half as much because we already had most of the necessary parts all but the bearings, gears and chain. ""

Read the whole article here ...

http://www.motherearthnews.com/alternative_energy/1974_March_April/The_Savonius_Super_Rotor

Personally I like combinations of systems ... I really like the idea of pumping the water back up, in the hydro-electric portion of your design, that's a winner ... use water as your energy storage unit, thereby eliminating the toxic wasteland of batteries (I've seen your battery string and man they gotta go dude) ... very cool system ... I might have to come out there and give you a hand with it Goomba ... and of course try some of that home-made pasta! I'll bring the wine, prociutto, olives, peppers, etc., ... as much as I love Ellsworth and that whole flippin hamburgers for the kids deal, there's nothing like a good old Italian 14 course meal for a real party! Peace ...

[rreidnauer]

Gosh, this is going to sound so much like I'm attacking Papa Joe, (which is NOT my intention) but that article is just another example of misleading, deceiving, or flat out lies, that just stir my pot. Instead of me just saying that they don't cut it, I'll point out the inaccuracies in the article. 'sigh' Sit back for a long ride. Here goes.

Note:
VAWT = Vertical Axis Wind Turbine, like the Savonius
HAWT = Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine, like a conventional propellor windmill

[list]First, I was kind of surprised that Mother Earth News would have published this article with the rather extensive inaccuracies. That was until I noted the date it was published, March 1974. Well, it's been over 30 years, and their "Super" powered VAWT hasn't become very popular for likely reasons. Want to guess why? Also, I note that it wasn't written by a Mother Earth News author, as at one point the statement, "Here at Earthmind . . . " tells me it's written by the VAWT developer, and reads like typical marketing jargon.

"-a California farm research center that specializes in alternative energy experiments-has revived the S-rotor in a very impressive fashion." Apparently not that "impressive" as the design has never taken off, only reinvented over and over, with the same physics bringing it's design back to reality every time.

"Differences notwithstanding, however, the lower end of the price range for even owner-built Stuart mills hovers stubbornly around $400 plus." Misleading: The price is for what? There are guys on Otherpower making their HAWTs for free, provided you are willing to scrounge for the parts.

"with 55-gallon drums stacked three on end (out of phase with one another) and even at low wind speeds the power from your creation will surprise you." Deceiving: It will surprise you . . . . but with low energy potential. This goes back to the physics of wind speed and the area (square footage) of your wind capturing device. Then there's the Betz limit, drag (which VAWTs are very much so), and mechanical losses. Also, built as they describe, there "big" model has only about 16 sqaure feet of effective collection area, the same as a 4 1/2 foot diameter HAWT windmill. So, as I said before, there is only so much wattage for a given windspeed and collection area. So here's some rough numbers: 20mph=264w, 15mph=113w, 10mph=34w, 5mph=4w

"Here's the point: The Stuart mill needed time to align itself first with the gust and then with the steady wind and as a result could not take advantage of much of their force. The S-rotor which didn't have to swing or "track"-was able to absorb the full power of both. One of the Savonius design's greatest assets, in fact, is that it can take a wind from any direction at any time." Deceiving: For a VAWT of equal collection area, in this case, 4 1/2 feet, how long do you think it will take to turn into the wind? I'd say all of about one second. Additionally, I've found wind direction doesn't change much when it's blowing. The only time I see large changes, is during Summer months when thermals are at their strongest. In fact, the Otherpower group doesn't even use sliprings for their turbine's pivot point, because it is so rare that wind direction changes enough to make it worthwhile. If this is the Savonius's greatest asset, it's not much to brag about.

"The resulting "gyroscopic vibration" has sent many a propeller, generator and tower crashing to earth. The non-tracking Savonius unit experiences no such problems." Deceptive/Lie: There is no gyroscopic vibration in a three bladed HAWT. That leaves static and dynamic balancing vibration. Both designs can suffer from it and both can be corrected. Their statement is invalid. As far as their statement of, "many a propeller, generator and tower crashing to earth" isn't a result of HAWT design, rather, it's construction by the builder is a more likely reason. (remember, this article is about building for nothing)

"It also means no tower just a pole-with some guy wires." And the difference is . . . . . . ?

"The S-rotor appears to turn very slowly, with only one revolution for up to eight of the Stuart mill's. If you think that speed is necessary to a wind charger's function, however, think again." Misleading: Sure you can do it at lower speeds . . . . . . . and much lower efficiency. Lower speeds just gives the air more time to move around the turbine. Think about it like this. A boat going slow plows it's way along inefficiently, but moving quickly it planes along much more efficiently. HAWTs could easily be made to turn slow and have high torque, by adding many more blades like an old Aermotor well pump, but it's known that higher speeds make a more efficient electrical generator.

"the conventional wind plant must attain a high rpm to operate but the S-rotor-which presents 10 to 20 times-as much surface area to the moving air mass-develops the same power at low rotational speeds." Deceptive/Lie: As desribed one above, HAWTs don't require high speeds, they just make the best use of the wind. Also, how are they determining surface area comparison? 10 to 20 times compared to what? They never say. Even so, they fail to mention half is turning INTO the wind, which is not only NOT making power, but robbing power from itself. Also, in their design with the drums, a circle is one of the highest drag profiles known in the aeronautical community. They come off sounding like they can extract more power at their lower speeds. They can't, as physics only allow so much energy for a given windspeed and area, and the machines efficiency, and we already proved it inefficient.

"due to the Savonius plant's relatively slow rotational speed, its power output must be stepped up through some rather high gear ratios to drive an alternator fast enough to produce a meaningful amount of electricity. But so what?" SO WHAT!?!?! LMAO. Hello? Can you say efficiency? Great, they just proved why a HAWT is better. HAWTs skip the step VAWTs must take. Any transmission will waste energy. It's gone, lost forever. Transmissions provide a pretty constant loss of efficiency, so at higher wind speeds, it's only negligible, but at more common slow wind speeds, it can be devastating to your output. It can be as high as a 90% loss in the lowest operating windspeeds. So, why not have the Savonius just turn faster and avoid this step? It's because VAWTs can't. They can only turn about as fast as the wind blows. Well, some can turn faster, like a Darreius design, but they suffer from other problems, like they need a motor to start them turning. Unfortunately, with variable winds, the motor will likely draw more power starting up the rotor after every lull in the wind, than what energy will be produced. Hense, you don't hear much about them anymore. (I'm sure someone will be reinventing them again soon)

"The faster-turning blades of the second design [HAWT] must be well designed and balanced to operate at such speeds. Since few folks have the tools or know-how to do this, the airfoils (or the whole propeller) must often be purchased at high cost." Lie: And a flat out lie at that. Building and balancing blades is extremely easy with basic hand woodworking tools, and a simple string balance. Heck I even seen very good blades cut directly out of PVC pipe. Anyone willing to build their own wind turbine, isn't going to be intimidated by making their propellor too.

"The S-rotor can begin to charge 12volt batteries at wind speeds lower than the 7-mph minimum required by the "normal" prop-driven plant. Our installation has worked successfully at 6 mph, and we believe that some modification of the rotor will lower the necessary speed to 5 mph." Lie: yet another. Remember? Only so many watts can be extracted from a given windspeed and collection area. Any generator can be wire wound to generate 12+ volts at low windspeeds, though power (watts) will be negligible, and become very inefficient with increasing winds. What miniscule amout of power they might generate, will be almost completely absorbed by their gear-up transmission.

"A separate sensor (also mechanical) is used to limit or switch off field current to the alternator in case of either very high winds or no winds at all." I thought they claimed high winds don't require shutdown. If shutdown is important, I will say a VAWT can easily be fitted with a mechanical brake. Far more easily than a HAWT. Switching off alternator field current with a sensor is inefficient and just something else to fail. I can only imagine you'd want to do so for startup reasons. This is a problem due to their alternator selection, something I'll cover a little later.

"With the aid of our data recorders we've assembled some figures to show what kind of power the Savonius rotor can produce. Such a windplant's capacity, of course, depends a good deal on your choice of alternator, so I'm listing our results for units with three ratings" Where are the figures promised? None are listed.

"If you're wondering why the large S-rotor has such a high power output, the answer is that we've hooked four alternators to it. Two would normally be sufficient, but we've added two more as brakes." Deceptive: Again, they try to make it sound like there is some amazing, magical way of pulling power out of the wind that doesn't exist. Physics people, physics.

"This way, when normal wind devices would have to shut down because of dangerously high wind speeds, our unit can keep right on going to take as much energy as the rushing mass of air can provide." Lie: a double lie this time. "Normal wind devices" (HAWTs) don't shut down, they furl, reducing their collection area by swinging out of the wind, but still continue to generate power. Furling simply prevents them from generating too much power. Large commercial HAWTs feather their blades to control power. The only time they stop is when they don't need to be making energy or for maintenance. Second, their comment, ". . . to take as much energy as the rushing mass of air can provide." goes directly against the statement earlier about two additional alternators added for brakes.[/list:u]

That about covers all the statements I can confront about VAWT/HAWT comparisons, but there's a few more points.

First, automotive alternators. This is perhaps the most inefficient choice for power generation. Alternators are self excited via a regulator and an electromagnetic field. What this means is, you got to use some power to make power. They also require a lot of RPM. With Permanent Magnet Alternators (PMAs) you don't have to do that, as the magnets provided the magnetic field without further power requirements. Much lower RPMs are required withthis design. An axial flux PMA would be ideal with a VAWT, as much so as it is on a HAWT. And they can be very cheap to build from scrap. Even the magnets can be gathered for free to near free from dead microwaves or harddrives.

Second point, they make it sound like you must have a HAWT way up on a tower. Not true. If you wanted to, you could have your HAWT off the ground just far enough to have the blade miss the ground. But they don't. Why? Well, because anyone involved in wind power generation knows the higher you go, the more windspeed increases, as you get away from the drag the earth creates. We all know more windspeed means more power, and the increase is for every doubling of windspeed, power goes up by a factor of EIGHT. So even an extra few mph's can lead to some significant power increases. It's easy to put a HAWT up high, but the same can't be said of VAWTs of any appreciable size.


So, the way they wrote the article, they make it sound like HAWTs suffer from problems, and the very things they list as problems, are actually things which increase efficiency. Things VAWTs can't do. So I'll finish up with the problem of VAWTs. Efficiency path:

Wind-->Ground Effect Friction Losses-->Collector Drag losses-->Machine Geometry losses-->Transmission Losses-->Alternator Losses-->Power Output

Yes, VAWTs will work, but so much power is thrown away, that it just doesn't make sense to go this route. Some things can be improved on, but they can't hold a candle to a HAWT.
----------------------------------------------------------
OK, enough ranting. I'm beat. Sorry for the long post, but this one was bugging me since I read it.

[PapaJoe]

Wow ... after reading this I can't help but wonder if Rod was viciously attacked by a Savonious Rotor as a child ... just kidding guy, and no offense was taken by your reply ... I get these comparisons all the time. Yes it's true that HAWT numbers look good in comparison charts, however there is one huge advantge to a VAWT that needs to be mentioned ... Safety ... there are numerous HAWT wind-farms all over the world and yet few people have actually seen one, the reason is that these installations are located away from highly populated areas, and the reason for that is safety ... the propellors in a HAWT throw ice in the winter for one (those blade heaters are just not reliable enough yet)... not a good thing, the other is the chance that a propellor will come loose and become a projectile (in any weather) ... also not very desireable. The HAWT installed by Exelon Corporation at the Zion Nuclear Plant here in Illinois had to be decommissioned due to ice being thrown into close proximity of the reactor ... not a good thing. The design of a VAWT virtually eliminates these dangers and therefor can be safely installed in populated areas, a really nice feature. Of course local juristiction codes have to be dealth with no matter what your planning to install, wheather it be a wind-turbine or a dog house, but I have been installing VAWT machines on residential and commercial rooftops with a lot less resistance from the building-code-nazis' ... Again let me say that I like renewable energy systems and the residential installations that combine wind, solar, geothermal mass, and even hydro are doing the best job, in other words, I haven't seen the magic bullet or one system that does it all yet. One last thought, this one concerns engineers, these guys consistantly attack my installations with reasons why they won't work ... my reply is always the same ... "Engineers Built the Titanic, amateurs Built the Arc". Another one of my favorite quotes comes from a guy named Albert Einstein ... once during a particularly heated question and answer lecture at Princeton University while under attack reguarding one of his theories he said, "The thing that disturbs me most is those that will take a length of wood, find it's weakest part, then drill many holes in it." I'll be in PA., the second week of December doing routine maintenance and testing on Exelons' power plants standby power systems, I'll give you a call Rod, maybe we can get together and solve a few world problems like world peace, etc., over a few beers.

[CHARBEL NADDAF]

hello, how's everybody doing? i am building a vertical windmill as a last year project in my university, and i need some help. can anyone guide me to a website, or directly explain to me about the influence of the number of magnets on the maximum power output? for example, if i increase the number of magnets, will i get more or less voltage, more or less current, in general more or less power? is there any restrictions concerning the number of magnets? the same questions i would ask concerning the number and specifications of the coils. please can anyone help me ?

[StressMan79]

Charbel,

You can't get any more power out than the power in the wind. Power out=efficiency*wind_power.

your efficiency will depend on many things, but using a standard rotor/stator design like rod did (http://www.loghomebuilders.org/wind-power), you'll lose most from the wind-mechanical conversion (~50%). the wind power increases as the area of the turbine (and the wind velocity, cubed--put it on a tower).

In short, you'll want good Neodynium magnets, but you don't need to have tons. Rod is the calculation master, but if you don't understand basic electrodynamics, perhaps a "kit" would be a good first stip.

-Peter

[rreidnauer]

Soooooo many variables come to mind Charbel, that for now, I'm just going to suggest you check out www.fieldlines.com and study up there.