Doug Selsam Inventor of Superturbine(R) 

3 blades and a gear box motor pitch motors ect 300ft up spinning isnt any smarter

...and you could sit underneath and catch the chopped up birds

I call them out, number of spinning blades is one thing, electrical power is another. Why don't you disclosure wind speed, voltage and current?

Birds are first knocked unconscious, defeathered, filleted, then the fillets automatically land on the solar barbecue. Pay attention.

thunderbird do popo. don kill him

It's spelled "oscillations".

thanks, google failed me, I ingresh good unuff

How did you go back and edit your own comment? I would like to be able to correct my own misspellings!

I own google

I'm on pc, 3 dots on the right side of the comment, click and a menu comes up, one option is edit

You can break up the stress with bearings but good point.

I've had multi-rotor turbines running for years upon years now, with driveshafts made from many materials. There's one helping to power this very message, as a matter of fact. Very blustery out there today... The ones that survive best is often a surprise. Yes you have to engineer for long term survival. Calculations are nice, but you have to verify in real-world testing. After your failures approach, say, 100, you start to figure out what a turbine really needs to be reliable over the long haul. But driveshaft failure has not been the problem that many assume. The idea is to keep stresses low in the first place. Regular old mild steel, ironically, in certain configurations, can be the best choice. Who would have thought?

This is a prototype that proves the concept works! I would suggest running a guide cable and suspending the turbines on hung bearings. This is in reference to canyon and peak to peak installation. I was thinking of 4140 thin wall tubing would be a good choice verses CRS?

And what about the noise level? Too many blades spining fast like that aren't too noisy?

I cannot see any way to reliably scale this up. He model was sagging massively just at this size. The reason one huge aerodynamically precise fan with adjustable angle of attack is used is so that even in barely any win they will still turn. Also until some data is recorded and compared we don't know that this is more effective. It kind of a classic mistake to think more of something means more good. But but adding a gear box and a large fan with variable angle blades very likely produces the same amount of power.

You could dampen the sound and not kill birds with a carbon fiber shroud. However that would be in the millions.

@@TheMeigsr Yeah that deer-whistle idea has been floating around for decades. Makes a nice talking point. Most people don't really have anything else to say about wind turbines except they could hit a bird. We're still waiting to hit a bird. Cats kill billions of birds. We should probably just get a cat. :)

Then you'd just be mounting individual wind turbines, complete with their own generators, on a non-rotating, non-drive-shaft, largely aligned with the wind, at which point you might want to consider just mounting them side-by-side on any support structure instead. Why would you want to suffer from wake interference between rotors if you're giving up the advantage of all rotors powering a single generator? A major advantage of this configuration is "a single moving part", rather than hundreds of moving parts. Nice try. Keep thinking, and keep watching! :)

yo good idea !

That would probably make the thing heavy . How much can the central shaft hold ? Also the torque on the shaft where it connects to the generator must be imense because it's added up from all the propellers . Though that wouldnt be a problem if each blade spins independently and generates power by itself as you suggested . But would you get more or less power that way instead of having one big generator ? I think the point of this desing was to accumulate the torque from all the propellers to drive one big generator. This design can't be good . The propellers are all the same distance and all are oriented the same . This can't be the most effective way to catch the wind . He needs to find a way to do actual simulations at some supercomputer because I guarantee it he will get some major differences in optimal configurations for different speeds . Also its VERY loud . They make the turbines so large and with only 3 blades BECAUSE they were trying to reduce the noise .

Dude, let's JAM!!! :)))

Ohh Yahhhh. I doubt if we have one near your work or home. But if so, maybe it's time for a career change. :)

Yeah, I saw one on a sailboat the other day..and wait, come to think of it. I saw one in someones yard..and in a box in a store. Holy deal, theres one inside this hole on the console of my car. Wait, I just got home..there's one on my cieling. I'm freaking out!

Thank you Harsha :)

Yeah, the flying bird blender!!!!

Yes, let's free the blender from the countertop! :)

Its actually a scam. Notice his hair is not even being blown yet his blades are at max speed. They mysteriously went to max speed as soon as he "unlocked" the alternator/generator. They didnt gradually get uo to speed. They went straight to MAX speed while he stands 15feet away and his hair doesnt even budge. He had the generator/alternator hooked up to most likely a power convertor hidden in the van. He is trying to fool ppl and either get rich selling fake systems or get enough money to be able to try it up in the stratosphere where it will fail. I didnt trust him fron his 1st lie about oil 2.5 minutes in. And he lives in clutter

@@dickfitswell3437 Hey DICK: You mind if I call you DICK? Cuz I think it "fits well". So DICK, you want to see my hair blowing in the wind? You want to see this machine start on its own in some actual WIND, and make power, visible on meters? Only 17 rotors instead of 25, but it still exceeds a kiloWatt. Here you go, DICK: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-I0hrH8sBgeU.html

We should put in near chickens, my kids be eating the heck out some chickens 🐣

Birds are good at avoiding quickly flapping wings/blades/propellers. That's why flocks of birds don't have many internal collisions. Giant blades that appear to move slowly without distance cues are an issue though. Try catching a wild pigeon and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Originally designed as a poultry processor, these machines were able to sequentially slaughter, defeather, de-bone, and chop, tossing the resulting filets neatly onto a solar barbecue. Surprisingly, we found it producing power rather than using power, and realized we were on to something! :)

@@weinerherzog5925 *Also birds get VERY alert as they get closer to the ground. It's a evolution to avoid snakes and other predator's. Also these small high-speed blades make lots of noise when you get within 30 feet of them and birds can sense that. It's the large-silent slow-turning blade tips running 300 feet above ground level that are a problem. Luckily birds like to breed and they will always make more. Birds are a renewable resource too.*

The ability to extract oil from snakes was one of the great breakthroughs of modern technology. I have some new videos using a large kite instead of balloons, with instrumentation showing voltage and amps. They should be on my other youtube channel soon, if I can get them edited.

Update: We had crash using a kite, then rebuilt the Sky Serpent with only 17 rotors instead of 25. We then used the same kite, added a tail for stability , and took data, visible on the instruments in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-I0hrH8sBgeU.html Thanks for watching! :)

That "snake oil" meme is old.

Doug, how long do the bearings last at these high rpms and the binding? Maybe there is enough space between each bearing. I can't tell from the video. It seems like with the sagging you would have issues with bearings wearing out.

Sealed ball bearings are amazingly robust. We've never had a problem with bearings.

I guess you mean in comparison to several large blenders over a larger area!

Engineers don’t normally invent things they take orders from inventors

Yea he is a fraud. Just go to the end. Blades govstraight to max speed with no steady increase. Just boom, maxspeed and 15ft away he stands with his hair motionless. As soon as he failed at the spin move at 11:03 I knew he was full of it

@@dickfitswell3437 You mean instead of "unlocking" the generator they hooked a battery to it :D

@@dickfitswell3437 You mean instead of "unlocking" the generator they hooked a battery to it :D

Eo Tunan you could not even spell Red Herring. Blade material grows proportional to blade length cubed, whereas power only grows in proportion to swept area, which is proportional to blade length squared. Therefore, many smaller rotors can sweep the same area using a fraction of the material, and at higher RPM, which requires less gearing.

Whatever floats your boat, mate. It's your time and your money you invest. Good luck, live long and prosper.

Blade material is V=hA, meaning the blades material doesn't grow at a cubed rate, larger turbine propellers are hollow not solid. A 10 meter long blade may have a 0.5 meter wall thickness with a diameter of 3 meters, so if we simplify and make it a cylinder the material would be approx. (10*pi*(1.5)^2)-(10*pi)=2.23 cubic meters of whatever material. Whereas a solid 1 meter simplified blade with similar proportions would use 1 *pi*(.17)^2=0.52 cubic meters of the same material. So now we examine length to material use, at 10/2.23 and 1/0.52, and we can easily see the 4.5 meters per cubic material beats the 2 meters per cubic meter. Of course the material used would determine the minimum wall thickness but at a certain point, with any given material, a longer hollow propeller will use proportionally less material. Secondly, the sweep area is not a square it's a circle so it's pi*(r^2)*(blade count). So lets say you have a superturbine with 10, 1 meter long, 2 blade props, and a single 3 blade, 10 meter prop. The sweep area on the first is going to be 10*(2*(pi)) =62.8 square meters. The second will have a 3*pi*10^2=942 square meter sweep area. Then we come back to the original argument about which uses less material per sweep area, so lets do the math. 62.8/(10*(2*.52))=6ish square meters per cubic meter of material used, discounted material for driveshafts to connect the units of course, for the superturbine design. Then we get 942/(3*2.23)=140ish square meters of sweep area per cubic meter of material. Given the example is simplified and shapes are actually more efficiently designed in reality, it's quite easy to see that a larger single turbine is more efficient, cheaper, and easier to maintain than a multi-prop design. None of the above example takes into account the additional friction losses present in a higher speed turbine, nor was the cost of high speed bearings and lubricants accounted for, but, we can plainly see why engineers and physicists have gone for the single larger turbine versus the multi-prop designs. As far as your gearing argument, the larger generators typically produce power at about 1000 rpms, with a 30 rpm input, to get the same output you'd need many times more small direct drive turbine setups, and large direct drive generators are being deployed now negating the argument. All in all the current design of large 3 blade wind generators beats the superturbine efficiency hands down, and neither comes close to the power output per mass of fossil and bio fuels in the time tested and reliable internal combustion engine. So far no green energy source is reliable enough, small enough, or efficient enough to meet the current demand for power. Often times green energy has a higher carbon footprint than if we had simply used an standard fuel powered generator. If we put half the money spent on green energy into nuclear power plants, there would be no need to cover the landscape in windmills and solar panels, and the demand would be met with a reliable power source that is available regardless of the weather conditions.

…which isn't even mentioning aerodynamic effects like losses to tip vortices on the blades, which means the fewer blades there are, the better it is. Then there's the consideration that aerodynamic forces grow with v², thus a longer blade will at the same RPM have a much greater efficiency than a short, stubby one of the same area, the effects of Reynolds Numbers on the blade's aerofoil behaviour etc. But hey, I can't spell herring, so who am I to tell? Never step in the way of believers, Shawn. And then, there might be niche applications where this Superturbine actually makes sense, although I can't think of any right now. But let's have some faith, praise the inventor, and a miracle will happen. Like with those solar roadways and Tesla coil generators. ^^)

I'm a nuclear physicist, and quite familiar with the reductionist fallacy. Get too focused on one aspect of a problem and the tendency to lose sight of the whole picture increases. It was clearly evidenced by the fact that a wholly true statement was ignored by focusing on a minor spelling/typing error. This gentleman has demonstrated a working model, however, hasn't demonstrated an improvement over current models. A patent doesn't mean it's better either, it just means you were the first to write to the patent office about a particular idea. Itself another common fallacy, the appeal to authority, something solar roadways suffered. Inventors do have amazing ideas, and often times, come across ingenious solutions to everyday problems. This time, however, he's chasing a pipe dream, and hopefully realizes it prior to going broke.

valveman12 there are better water turbine designs... this design would kill a lot of fish

Solar is great up here in the high desert too, especially as a shade structure. We have way too much sun up here, but it is addicting too so, oh well. Down in L.A. and Orange County it looks dark at noon to me. Much stronger sun up here. We also have high winds, so we like to take advantage of both.

Agreed. Looks like a motor rather than generator.

Yup, because even with a high wind his turbines should have a natural start where they consistently get faster until they're equal with the wind. But like you said and I speculated, they appear to have been powered by a motor to get them to accelerate that fast.

Yes I said traditional turbines using induction motors as generators USE power at startup, like starting any motor. The turbine will initially spin slower than grid frequency due to "slip", thereby USING electricty to power the rotation. Then if the wind holds, the blades spin FASTER than grid frequency, thereby ADDING power to the grid. So you learned something. Anyone can look this stuff up.

@Eek-lips: It's using a DC motor as a generator (there is no difference) so it starts immediately when connected, briefly using some power (1 or 2 seconds) then it slams power into the batteries. Try viewing this more recent video showing the instruments and batteries and you can see the battery voltage at 45 Volts until it starts running in the wind, then you see the voltage climb up to 60 Volts and the amps hit 18 in a light-to-medium wind, meaning the turbine is producing over 1 kiloWatt, at a 3-foot diameter. The shredded ceiling of the van in the vid is from battery-acid: making so much power the batteries explode. Show us any other 3-foot turbine that can exceed 1 kW! Good eye, but you have to know what you're actually seeing. And having explained that, thanks for watching! :)

"traditional turbines using induction motors as generators USE power at startup [...] The turbine will initially spin slower than grid frequency due to "slip", thereby USING electricty to power the rotation. Then if the wind holds, the blades spin FASTER than grid frequency, thereby ADDING power to the grid. So you learned something. Anyone can look this stuff up. " Im not sure what to say about this. Do you know there is a gear box? Do you know that there are electronics involved to match up the frequency and voltage... because the turbine is pretty much never at a constant speed anyway? But since you seem so have a source: Please go ahead. Where can I find information like that? But lets say, for whatever reason, that this was really the case: How does ur system always have the right frequency? Any why would 1min of startup even matter? These things run at 50% degree of capacity utilization in the USA.

Man you are SHARP. Cutting powers of observation. Yeah I never had a socket set. Oh well we can dream. Someday... Harbor Freeeiigghhht, Harbor Freieieieighghghgt.

A regular old, very simple, 3 HP brushed DC motor connected to a bank of several car batteries, no controller. I do not remember the voltage, and I wish I did because I'm getting ready to fly it again, this time using a large lifting kite. Oh well, I can just run it unloaded at first, and thereby easily determine the best operating voltage, which is determined by how I interconnect the batteries (what combination of series & parallel). This time I hope to make a video showing meters indicating voltage and current. The batteries go in the back of the test vehicle. The ceiling is full of holes from acid splashed up by exploding batteries - yes it is that powerful. Thanks for watching! :)

O was thinking the same thing

I agree

Ryan Mitchum you mean like from the movie 5.... there are a lot of limitations to that tech... there are better alternatives that have been tested that don't interfere with airspace traffic

Hi Alexander: This particular configuration targets sites with a predominantly unidirectional wind resource, which is common in canyons and around mountains.

He missed the point. Large wind turbines spin slow for a reason. Reduce bird deaths.

Great for farmers - getting rid of crows, pigeons and doves - auto bird mincing machines floating above their farms

>Large wind turbines spin slow for a reason. Reduce bird deaths. The well being of birds is not the reason large wind turbines rotate slowly. The reason why they rotate slowly is because balancing propeller blades that large and building a propeller hub strong enough to account for the extreme centripetal force of a fast moving propeller would be ridiculously expensive. The stupid amount of torque would be another engineering nightmare for the gearbox, as well as the heat from all of the friction. If they really cared about birds, they'd use vertical wind turbines instead because there's nothing you could do with a traditional wind turbine to avoid bird strikes completely. Birds have no concept of a huge mass of steel crashing down on top of their heads, but if the blades were made vertical, it would be within their plane of vision and they'd avoid it. The only problem with vertical turbines is they're far less efficient, which is why they're rarely used.

All wind turbine rotors (propellers) spin at about the same speed, which is normally with the blade tips traveling about 6 times the wind speed, plus or minus. So for a 20 mph wind, your tips are going maybe 120 mph. If the turbine is small, that looks very fast, like a blur. For a very large turbine, that can translate to only about 15 RPM, which APPEARS slow, while actually being very fast. Stand under a utility-scale turbine on a windy day and the huge blades go by as fast as an indy car - "Whoosh!". But from a distance they appear to be spinning very slowly. The speed we allow the big blades to travel is ultimately limited by noise, as well as the need to prevent a runaway rotor.

So are solar based -thermal energy plants...they drop birds onto ground hot and ready to be eaten

Thank You. By the way, birds definitely get back at turbines. Pull down a turbine and you'll have to scrape away a lot of white bird debris before you can work on the turbine. They love to perch on turbines, build nests in turbines, and crap all over the generators. We can only hope they step on two terminals simultaneously, one with each foot, but they never seem to.

A tiny free whistle one of the blades will warn birds off, but the idea hasn't been accepted yet!

because it is bullshit

So he's built a turbine that can only harness wind from 1 direction out of 360 degrees..... Worst idea ive ever heard. You can enjoy your patents...

Needs to make this a water pump and soak the forest of northern California. Then mountain top to mountain top would make sense and all the haters would go back in their troll holes!

gotta love this magical world we live in where everything works perfect and there are no energy losses to worry

same thing some oil company waved a big check in some bodies face they buy and shelve it never to be seen again

could be. either they bought and shelved it, or they took one look and knew it wasn't worth the time/money. even a bending shaft has losses. faster it bends, the higher the losses per rotation.

Wow, all of the pessimism, ... I’ll bet the same thing was said about windmills, that powered pumps, pulleys, for grist milling, woodshop production, etcetera, ... .. . Rather than to build something with a few failures along the way, dedication to any concept has always had its critics, ... Wilbur, & Orville Wright, Tesla, Edison, Franklin, Or let’s go back to Archimedes, & Aristotle, or the pre Persians, with their Baghdad battery systems, ... So, Okay, there is no purpose to a road or highway, that leads to nowhere, but that is the purpose of xperimentation, adventure into the unknown, ... to xtend our knowledge past the boundaries of the known territory of local knowledge, to xplore the beyond of what we know, & how to make it better, last longer, cheaper, & faster, and smaller, ... so that we may xercise the basis of our being into something further advanced, ...

Just add some load on generator , and will see how the shaft twist like a spring.

excellent idea. burning coal => more CO2 => more plants => more birds to kill. Coal: bringing a dead planet back to life...

Doug Selsam where will the trees grow

On Uranus

Genius! Coal a finite resource, birds renewable!

Hahaha

when the wind dies, the thing crashes to the ground damaging the blades

I think wind is constant and fast at higher altitudes

He said " The wind is never gonna stopped" LOL.........but it did on his first try, lol

Developing wind energy systems is not easy because it takes years before you can say any given model can survive years of daily use, let alone multiple horrific storms. And you will most likely not get it right on the first try, meaning multiple testing cycles are required. Then again you can generate an accurate power curve in a few minutes on a good day. But that does not prove or even suggest survival of bad weather. Bad weather? Yes, high winds and turbulent, choppy air, let alone hail striking blades at 200 MPH. Try driving your Cadillac at 160 MPH on a bumpy dirt road and see how long it lasts.

Yes birds love windmills. Smaller birds build nests in them. The SuperTurbine(R) was originally developed as a sequential poultry processor, but one day we found it actually making power instead of using power - voila! (Seriously if you ever check into it, housecats kill thousands of times as many birds as windmills, which is why the Audubon Society is in favor of wind energy.) The main reason you ever even hear about windmills striking birds is your average person has no idea how wind turbines work, and has no opinion on any relevant factors because they don't know any relevant factors. What are they going to talk about, choice of airfoils? Method of overspeed protection? Matching voltage to load? The only thing your average person knows to comment about a wind turbine is that it is possible for the blades to strike a bird. In reality it hardly ever happens, although it does occasionally. My guess is the birds that are struck may be sick or otherwise not on top of their game, since most birds seem to understand to stay away from the rotor, and indeed sometimes seem to try to use a windmill as protection from other predatory birds.

there is a new blade that makes a silent noise that pushes the bats and birds away.. I worked in Turbines 10yrs only seen 2 birds hit by blades.. more trucks kill birds

Oh no I've only been to the hospital once so far!

Americans love to let politics override science, especially the konservative ilk.

you mean like the scam known and climate change? Al Gore has been wrong many times on this.

Yeah Las Vegas uses free or almost free electricity!

Actually true. But i imagine that the volume of air in the world is much higher than the volume of water in rivers. And they don't dam the air up... yet. So you would need much more windpower to make the same impact.

+Robert McLennan Nope it does not. You are confusing the Term "FREE". When people say Free energy is impossible they do not mean that you will always have to pay money for energy. What they mean is you cannot create new energy. ALL energy that will ever exist in our universe is already present. Free energy would be energy that is created from nothing. This is impossible. It is possible to make energy that does not cost you any money though. Simply build a wind turbine or water wheel from scrap or natural materials that you do not have to buy. That would be energy with no monetary cost. Apart from your time to build the device.

hey, thats a good idea. lets build a wind farm all throughout the central atlantic and pacific. take the wind out of hurricanes and typhoons. think of how much money and resources would be saved by not needing to rebuild cities every year.

They went far too greedy in damming rivers. Turbines too large, water pressure too high, as it left. The way to gain power from the flow of water is to use a multiple of smaller turbines in sequence down stream with a long generation stretch. not one big one at the top. Use gears for speed, blades made from lightwieght plastic / carbon fibre or other modern materials . on a Wide scale rather than Large scale. operations. so as not to disrupt the natural water flow too much. everything is too big and too greedy ! Better to take a little here and there . all the rivers i see always flow down hill. fit a small turbine every half mile to supply a small village + wind + solar, . we need 10 ways to make 10% of our energy requirements. = 100% ! if 5 of those ideas save 10% each . Then we only need 5 ways to each generate 10% of our needs. Plus wind and Solar need to be 10 % more efficient. We need to use every thing green combined into the same system. all appliances need to use 10% less power. (if Possible ) rechargeable garage / garden tools charged by their own solar panel on the shed roof or garage roof etc. or portable solar panel layed on the lawn or driveway etc. Why should power be a GIVEN RIGHT to Freely use as much as you want with no limits except the bill at the end of the month ? limit power / energy and ration it. not so tightly people go without and starve or freeze to death. NO ! your first allowance should be at standard cost . over that you pay 30% more. over another level you pay 50 % more. then double for OTT silly high users in a day / wk , month etc. set by size of home / occupants etc. To STOP MASS WASTAGE of energy. Heating rooms not in use, too many lights on with big bulbs in use etc. normal house would hardly notice, big users would expect to pay. crazy wasters would be paying double !

Ah, another armchair genius. Yes I am happy to educate you on how a wind turbine with permanent aim can be useful: Many locations have a unidirectional wind resource. Mountain passes are one primary example. And in fact I do have a "formal engineering education" which is helpful, but also please realize many breakthroughs come from people with little or no formal "education", such as the Wright Brothers. Langley with all his education and funding could not get an airplane to fly. The bros with NO formal education and NO money did it. Which is more like you? I think we can guess the answer. There is such a thing as "too much" education. Most people stay in school because they don't envision success. Others, such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, lift out of school because they realize sitting at a desk pretending there is nothing they can do in the world is counterproductive. School is for people who do not realize they are capable of learning on their own. And now, with the entire world of info at your fingertips using the internet, a formal education has become an anachronism, - a vestigial waste of time in many cases. If you don't need to sit around spending tens of thousands of dollars pretending you "need" to waste 4-6 years accomplishing nothing, making no money, then by all means, stay in school until you are a senior citizen. Some people need to just get out into the real 3-D world and DO things. Then the "professors" can "study" these accomplishments in 2-D and in perpetuity, making comments etc.. That is how it actually works.

Luciferian POS!

Better to fail miserably than be a miserable failure.

If YOU do what YOU'VE always done, YOU'LL get what YOU'VE always gotten.

and if you do what THEYVE always done,you get what They want you to have...a mil-spec(shudder) leash and a chance to properly kiss their ass....had an idea about perpetual loop of electricity in high school, asked guy that taught physical science, chemistry, physics...answer was"can't be done". not satisfied, I asked why. "it just can't. why? "because it cant, finish your assignment"...prick. about 1t years later I sat in a barn floor with another fellow equally stupid as myself and an odd gathering of tools. after about an hour, it worked. had to have external boost to start and required a constant draw besides the return to loop, but it worked. I could respect the guy if h ed said it was beyond him, or not his focus, or something. but what vigor instead really makes me wanna throat punch his stupid ads, right now as a matter of fact. never accept anything from anyone till you have considered it well and makes sense in your own mind. bar nothing, question everything.

Also I would hate to see birds 🦅 run into it.

Thanks @Top Secret: I call it "parallel processing for wind energy"... :)

Not fake, just directly coupled to a battery bank, with no blocking diode needed since it is a prototype that is not left to start and stop unattended. "A little knowledge"...

"The motor spins the whole assembly not the wind"... lmao

OK, I take the statement about missing diode as an explanation as well as a confirmation that the motor delivers the torque required for shaft rotation, not the other way round. Electric energy is therefore consumed, not generated at 11:00. Once again this reasoning is based on above mentioned observation how torsional deformation of the shaft propagates from the motor to the balloon-suspended end. This is clearly visible at the moment of start in your video and it proves that the motor is the source of mechanical energy that rotates the shaft not the wind. To me it still seems like a fake, can you prove my statement is wrong (I am talking specifically about the time-frame 10:52 to 11:00) ?

Why would you not use a blocking diode? What instrumentation did you have to see how much power is flowing and in which direction?

Thought the same when I saw it. Scrolled down to comments to see if anybody else noticed it.

Yes of course in wind energy we do not call the spinning blades a "propeller". The proper term is "rotor", however many everyday people do not understand what "rotor" means in wind energy. And this video is for a general audience, whom we do not wish to alienate by using overly-technical, "insider" language. Further, anything that rotates is properly called "rotor". For example, in wind energy the generator has a "rotor" and a "stator". So if you refer to a wind turbine's "rotor" you COULD be talking about the blades, or you might mean the rotating part of the generator. Therefore, the term "rotor" is not specific. The term "propeller" however, while technically "incorrect", is more specific. When you say "propeller", everyone knows exactly what part you are talking about. So you can take me seriously after all - this is not my first rodeo. Nobody will wonder what I mean when I use words anybody can understand. Enjoy the simplicity! Not everyone is a wind energy engineer. You have to tailor your language to your audience. Also, if you think about it, the rotor actually does "propel" the generator. :)

Not always valid to call those without specific wind energy knowledge "dumb". As I pointed out, the generator of any wind turbine also has "a rotor", making the term "propeller" more specific and unambiguous with regard to the rotating blade assembly, even if technically less proper.

Doug Selsam I wasn't going to respond to this, but I feel like I have to. Rotor is a generic term for anything that rotates. A propeller is a rotor that is driven by some kind of motor or engine, producing thrust and propelling the vehicle it's attached to. A turbine is a rotor that uses the energy in a flowing fluid, for example air, water or the exhaust from the combustion chambers in a turbine engine, and converts it into a rotation to drive for example a generator (which admittedly has its own rotor), a compressor or fan stage in a gas turbine engine, or for that matter even a propeller, such as on a turboprop engine. If you think your audience are so uneducated, why don't you just teach them this very simple terminology? Dumbing down something just makes those of us who knows something about this trust you less, and those that don't feel stupid.

What I mean by this is, what's on a wind power plant is a turbine. Propeller is the exact opposite of turbine. You don't call the basement of your house an attic, because there might be people out there that don't know what a basement is, do you.

Outsiders to wind energy typically fixate on "birds" and what word we choose to call the blades. Insiders are less concerned with "birds and words", knowing windows and housecats kill more birds every day than all the windmills in the world will in the next 50 years, and that any word will do, as long as people understand what you mean.

Moved to a much larger facility.

@@dougselsam5393 ...ever sold any of your innovations to anyone ?

@@jukkatakamaa7274 Hi Jukka: Stupid me: I've turned down some big offers. Lately developing real estate, but crazy new types of wind turbines remain as a strong interest. I have the U.S. Patent on the floating "Spar buoy" style floating foundation for deep-water offshore wind in U.S. Waters. U.S. Patent 10,024,307 Floating Marine Wind Turbine www.windpowerengineering.com/new-u-s-patent-granted-for-floating-marine-wind-turbine/ nawindpower.com/new-u-s-patent-awarded-for-floating-offshore-wind-turbines The big players are trying to sort out what they want to do with it.

Yup, endlessly re"cycled" through the carbon "cycle". We can greatly shorten the time for re-use by mining frozen methane clathrates from the seafloor. As long as no carbon leaves the planet we have an endless recycling scenario with regard to carbon-based fuels, which represent chemically-stored solar energy. Carbon = green - ask a plant. Still, I prefer wind energy, since it is so fun! We have a pretty much zero electric bill around here.

Renewable? Like, in 50 million years? That's not renewable in a human scale, tinfoil

Dude408f constantly producing. Can we consume all of it faster than produced .maybe but we'll be using something else before that happens. I hope

Like, like, like, like, like Dude. Like. No, like, renewable now. Dude. Harvesting methane clathrates from the seafloor NOW, before they are subducted under a continental plate to turn into oil after millions of years. Like, Dude, like, like, like, like, your tinfoil hat, like, needs, like, patching. Your like, brain, is like, like, like, leaking out all over the place!

Create a windmill that turns at a low RPM to produce 14 Volts at ~6 MPH, once running. Your power will then be limited by current to a fraction of the generator's rated output. It's important to match generator parameters to battery voltage.

Also, you will see maybe 24 open Volts when it is not driving a load, but when charging batteries that 24 Volts will drop to 14 Volts, so open voltage when spinning unconnected to a load will be higher than actual voltage when charging.

Carbon fiber

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-I0hrH8sBgeU.html

Some versions aim with the wind, other versions are for areas with a unidirectional wind resource.

that's "affect"... There's a range of good performance with regard to wind direction.

Probably. For this machine, I had to chose between "perfect" and "now" - the balloons are cheap and stay up when the wind stops, but suffer in strong winds. Kites would offer some advantages. The patents cover both.

carbon fibre

No capacitor ever made can handle that kind of jolt.

jay90374 That doesn't mean it couldn't be done. A few years ago I was tasked with making a broadband-over-powerline transceiver survive outdoor, lightning-induced surges on house power feeds. That's a 1500V, 100amp surge. At first I thought it couldn't be done, especially since most of the methods for surviving a surge involve clamping the voltage and providing a temporary short circuit to protect downstream electronics. Unfortunately, these all have too much capacitance (a few picofarads is "too much") to allow the transceiver to work if it is shunting the power lines. After some research, I found caps rated for large surges and replaced the small series cap for the transceiver (about 1cm diameter, 2mm thickness) with 3 large (approx. 1cm x 5cm x 3cm) caps to limit and store part of the surge untl it could be dissipated by the power line. A small RF transformer (1cm diameter, 30 AWG windings) was in series with these caps and tied to the transciever. I used the Onderdonk equation for fusing time of copper wire to convince myself the transformer would survive the current spike, and an integration formula provided by the manufacturer of the capacitors to insure the caps would survive the surge. It worked quite well. Thousands of these circuits were built and put into the SmartMeter circuits.

Cynthia - Interesting story, but 1500V at 100 amps is miniscule compared to the power of a direct hit from a major strike. I am not saying it will never be done, the tech is changing daily, but have not heard of anyone studying it.

Too little energy on average and massively unreliable.