Tweet
Here's a post from jibbguy I just read:
Seems CWATs are not so 'secretized' after all, if we can trust Wikipedia:
Compact Wind Acceleration Turbines
CWATs are a class of wind turbine that uses structures to accelerate wind before it enters the wind-generating element.[1] The concept of these structures has been around for decades [2] but has not gained wide acceptance in the marketplace. In 2008, two companies targeting the mid-wind (100 kW-1 MW) marketplace have received funding from venture capital. The first company to receive funding is Optiwind, which received its series A funding in April 2008, and the second company is FloDesign Wind Turbine Corp, which also received its series A funding in April 2008. Optiwind [3] is funded through Charles River Ventures and FloDesign is funded through Kleiner Perkins.[4] Other CWATs under development include the WindTamer from AristaPower, WindCube, Innowind (conceptual offshore application) and Enflo turbines.
CWATs are a new acronym that encompasses the class of machines formerly known as DAWTs (diffuser augmented wind turbines). The technologies mentioned above all use diffuser augmentation that is substantially similar to previous designs as the primary means of acceleration. DAWTs were heavily researched by K. Foreman and Oman of Grumman Aerospace in the 1970s and 1980s and Igra in Israel in the 1970s. At the end of a decade of wind tunnel research and design funded by Grumman, NASA, and the DOE, it was determined that the DAWT system's economics were not sufficient to justify commercialization. In the 1990s the Grumman technology was licensed to a New Zealand company, Vortec Wind. The attempt to commercialize the Vortec 7 in New Zealand from 1998 to 2002 proved it to be economically untenable when compared to the dominant HAWT (horizontal axis wind turbine) technology.
Ultimately, any wind turbine design must be measured against economic realities. It must positively answer the question, "is the cost to install and operate the system lower than the cost of other alternatives, including the local electric grid?" Historically, CWAT/DAWT designs have failed to overcome this hurdle as compared to more conventional HAWT designs, however, there is reason to believe that this equation may be shifting towards these new designs. The two primary drivers of this equation have been the amount of augmentation and the structural implications of these additional design elements.
For the highest claimed velocity increase in a DAWT of 1.6 x freestream
Power ratio DAWT to HAWT = (1/2.75)(16ms/10ms)3 = 1.48 increase
Not significant enough to offset the associated costs. The problem with optiwind is even more severe since the system only covers a fraction of the swept area available to a HAWT of the stack height.
The challenge has always been, and remains, installing, operating, and maintaining these structures for a cost that is less than the incremental value gained by their presence. Recent developments in material science, installation methodology and overall system integration have led to the far more realistic view that we are very close to this advent and the dawn of a new, highly sustainable class of wind turbine if the issues elucidated above can be dealt with which still remains highly questionable for the DAWT geometry.
Among the recent DAWT designs that appear to have a definitive positive power, if not cost, comparison to HAWTs is the Enflo turbine. Based on its rotor:exit ratio and the published power performance this turbine appears to have a confirmed 2 times increase in power output over a HAWT of the diameter of the exit area. It is still unlikely that this machine can scale to larger ratings but based on published data the Enflo appears to be the best performing DAWT/CWAT yet built.
BTW: One thing jibbguy didn't mention on that Suppression Document and YouTube post was that FloDesign, itself, and by it's own admission is... get this! ...a world-renowned expert in suppression technology
...mixer/ejector suppression, that is: Suppression « FloDesign – Innovative Business Incubator
Originally posted by jibbguy
View Post
As stated before, "suppression" is not always only about exotic , "free energy" devices and technologies; but could also be about "game changing" conventional alternative energy techs (such as highly efficient solar pv as mentioned in the "thread-starting" document that governed which Patent Applications were to be "secretized" by the US government).
This is an interesting development (though perhaps a sad one):
The "FloDesign Wind Turbine" was a revolutionary design, that claimed 3 times better efficiency and lower cost than the large "prop-job" wind turbines usually seen (...a market dominated by General Electric corporation in the U.S. ). It would also allow for de-centralized energy production... and destroy most of the negative points about wind power that the energy corporations use in their propaganda against it... such as: it is easy to "exclude" birds from, can operate in both higher and lower wind conditions, is nearly silent, is close to the ground so the "natural beauty" of the area is not "polluted" (lol that one always makes me laugh), and it would be a lot cheaper per megawatt to build and install. It could also be easily incorporated into the sides or roofs of large buildings.
FloDesign :: Aerospace Technologies Everywhere
Recently I checked back there, as i have done several times over the last 3 years since it was first reported on in a few science online magazines, to see the "Progress". Mention of the wind turbine has disappeared from the site (replaced by a variety of "Homeland Security" products including "non-lethal weapons").
The short animated video that did a good job of describing and demonstrating the technology is gone too.
Wind FloDesign Wind Turbines based on Jet Engine Technology display 3-4 times Higher Efficiency
In case the last available photo of it disappears too, here it is
I believe many of you read the previous posts about it and remember this one.
Is it a "good" example of suppression? Hard to say for sure, i have yet to hear back from them from my email asking about it. Was it sold off, and "shelved", by G.E. or another corp? It was reported to have been awarded funding by several high-power entities, and the U.S Department of Energy. It was not something plausibly likely to be just "dropped" because they got bored with it
Note that in the above article, it reports that the entities that signed on to fund the project included "Goldman Sachs".
In the removed video, it described an interesting vortex effect in the "exhaust" turbulence after the turbine blades that was the reason it was so efficient. Rather "Schauberger-like" ; but with air as medium not water.
EDIT: I went back and found the other article on this subject, on this same thread from over 2 years ago... and the video is still on that one. And i now remember something odd about it since re-reading that post: It was the only time that i know of, where a post was removed (or otherwise "disappeared"), without my action on our "Free Energy Facebook Group" (...since i am the only admin of it). Since after that time, the group got "reset" when FB "re-did" the Groups, and a lot of the older posts got wiped; and i had forgot about that strange happening from before the "re-set".
Wind Turbine Concept Inspired by Jet Engines
This is an interesting development (though perhaps a sad one):
The "FloDesign Wind Turbine" was a revolutionary design, that claimed 3 times better efficiency and lower cost than the large "prop-job" wind turbines usually seen (...a market dominated by General Electric corporation in the U.S. ). It would also allow for de-centralized energy production... and destroy most of the negative points about wind power that the energy corporations use in their propaganda against it... such as: it is easy to "exclude" birds from, can operate in both higher and lower wind conditions, is nearly silent, is close to the ground so the "natural beauty" of the area is not "polluted" (lol that one always makes me laugh), and it would be a lot cheaper per megawatt to build and install. It could also be easily incorporated into the sides or roofs of large buildings.
FloDesign :: Aerospace Technologies Everywhere
Recently I checked back there, as i have done several times over the last 3 years since it was first reported on in a few science online magazines, to see the "Progress". Mention of the wind turbine has disappeared from the site (replaced by a variety of "Homeland Security" products including "non-lethal weapons").
The short animated video that did a good job of describing and demonstrating the technology is gone too.
Wind FloDesign Wind Turbines based on Jet Engine Technology display 3-4 times Higher Efficiency
In case the last available photo of it disappears too, here it is
I believe many of you read the previous posts about it and remember this one.
Is it a "good" example of suppression? Hard to say for sure, i have yet to hear back from them from my email asking about it. Was it sold off, and "shelved", by G.E. or another corp? It was reported to have been awarded funding by several high-power entities, and the U.S Department of Energy. It was not something plausibly likely to be just "dropped" because they got bored with it
Note that in the above article, it reports that the entities that signed on to fund the project included "Goldman Sachs".
In the removed video, it described an interesting vortex effect in the "exhaust" turbulence after the turbine blades that was the reason it was so efficient. Rather "Schauberger-like" ; but with air as medium not water.
EDIT: I went back and found the other article on this subject, on this same thread from over 2 years ago... and the video is still on that one. And i now remember something odd about it since re-reading that post: It was the only time that i know of, where a post was removed (or otherwise "disappeared"), without my action on our "Free Energy Facebook Group" (...since i am the only admin of it). Since after that time, the group got "reset" when FB "re-did" the Groups, and a lot of the older posts got wiped; and i had forgot about that strange happening from before the "re-set".
Wind Turbine Concept Inspired by Jet Engines
Seems CWATs are not so 'secretized' after all, if we can trust Wikipedia:
Compact Wind Acceleration Turbines
CWATs are a class of wind turbine that uses structures to accelerate wind before it enters the wind-generating element.[1] The concept of these structures has been around for decades [2] but has not gained wide acceptance in the marketplace. In 2008, two companies targeting the mid-wind (100 kW-1 MW) marketplace have received funding from venture capital. The first company to receive funding is Optiwind, which received its series A funding in April 2008, and the second company is FloDesign Wind Turbine Corp, which also received its series A funding in April 2008. Optiwind [3] is funded through Charles River Ventures and FloDesign is funded through Kleiner Perkins.[4] Other CWATs under development include the WindTamer from AristaPower, WindCube, Innowind (conceptual offshore application) and Enflo turbines.
CWATs are a new acronym that encompasses the class of machines formerly known as DAWTs (diffuser augmented wind turbines). The technologies mentioned above all use diffuser augmentation that is substantially similar to previous designs as the primary means of acceleration. DAWTs were heavily researched by K. Foreman and Oman of Grumman Aerospace in the 1970s and 1980s and Igra in Israel in the 1970s. At the end of a decade of wind tunnel research and design funded by Grumman, NASA, and the DOE, it was determined that the DAWT system's economics were not sufficient to justify commercialization. In the 1990s the Grumman technology was licensed to a New Zealand company, Vortec Wind. The attempt to commercialize the Vortec 7 in New Zealand from 1998 to 2002 proved it to be economically untenable when compared to the dominant HAWT (horizontal axis wind turbine) technology.
Ultimately, any wind turbine design must be measured against economic realities. It must positively answer the question, "is the cost to install and operate the system lower than the cost of other alternatives, including the local electric grid?" Historically, CWAT/DAWT designs have failed to overcome this hurdle as compared to more conventional HAWT designs, however, there is reason to believe that this equation may be shifting towards these new designs. The two primary drivers of this equation have been the amount of augmentation and the structural implications of these additional design elements.
For the highest claimed velocity increase in a DAWT of 1.6 x freestream
Power ratio DAWT to HAWT = (1/2.75)(16ms/10ms)3 = 1.48 increase
Not significant enough to offset the associated costs. The problem with optiwind is even more severe since the system only covers a fraction of the swept area available to a HAWT of the stack height.
The challenge has always been, and remains, installing, operating, and maintaining these structures for a cost that is less than the incremental value gained by their presence. Recent developments in material science, installation methodology and overall system integration have led to the far more realistic view that we are very close to this advent and the dawn of a new, highly sustainable class of wind turbine if the issues elucidated above can be dealt with which still remains highly questionable for the DAWT geometry.
Among the recent DAWT designs that appear to have a definitive positive power, if not cost, comparison to HAWTs is the Enflo turbine. Based on its rotor:exit ratio and the published power performance this turbine appears to have a confirmed 2 times increase in power output over a HAWT of the diameter of the exit area. It is still unlikely that this machine can scale to larger ratings but based on published data the Enflo appears to be the best performing DAWT/CWAT yet built.
BTW: One thing jibbguy didn't mention on that Suppression Document and YouTube post was that FloDesign, itself, and by it's own admission is... get this! ...a world-renowned expert in suppression technology
...mixer/ejector suppression, that is: Suppression « FloDesign – Innovative Business Incubator
For a corporation that has moved to making "non-lethal weapons" for the Department of Homeland Security, after getting funding from Goldman Sachs, that seems like a rather bizarre way of reaching market.
Comment