Genius Bladeless Hydro Turbine is Cheaper Than Solar 

Interesting! Some thoughts: 1. The carbon footprint, lifespan, and recyclability of the two technologies would also have to be taken into account, and solar panels are... problematic... in all three regards. 2. Solar panels have to have a sturdy foundation, are fairly fragile, and require constant cleaning. This looks like it only requires an anchor and some form of grate to protect it from debris. 3. The main reason solar panels cost so little in comparison is because of their *HUGE* sales volume. This new turbine isn't able to enjoy that. ...yet. Cheers!

I am not sure if I understood why this is called bladeless when the ball/half hemisphere is clearly the blade. Furthermore, why is it any different to one with a blades when it comes to wildlife? On the face of it, it looks even less safe to the fish than the ones with blades. I am not pretending to fully understand the system but the ones using a "blade" are presummbly dangerous to the fish because the body of the fish could come into contact with a fast running "blade". If that is the case then the same thing applies to the "ball"/"semisphere", doesn't it? The only way round this problem is to rotate the ball tangential to the flow of water, i.e. the rotation not being directly in the path of the flow. But that doesn't match your demonstration or the diagram. May be that is the reason for the low of eiffiency but then 55% seems a lot for such an arrangement and I am not convinced by the idea that the vortex will carry on independently once started. of course how long it will carry on must be dependent of the ratio of the flow rate and the size of the outflow assuming there is zero potential energy due to gravity. If the rotating mass is as shown is direct in the path of the flow it needs to be large enough for the fish to get through and the larger the fish the more probablity of it getting squeezed beteen the rotating mass and the sides of container. Unless there is another mechanism to prevent the fish entering the system that I would imagine can easily be achieved using a mesh that lets the water through but not the fish. So, where it the problem that was supposed to be solved by this system? I can understand that the mesh needs to be easily permeable to water which unless we are talking about the tinyest fish and other aquatic larva it is not going to be problem given that nature has already seen to that problem though the ratio of eggs to those that survive long enough to procreate. Besides, there is always going to be the question of maintenace to clear the flow form dead vegitation and river sediments that will very much depend on the environment outside the system. So, the idea of what gets into the system falls within the parameters the maintenace anyway. So, can you please tell me what I am missing here? To be honest in the end none of these system are viable because they all depent on the speifics of the environment. Rivers are no where at steady as you present them to be. The flow rate changes all the time so you really need custom design for each case that given the changing climate is going to be oscilating between extremes. Riverbeds can go from being bone dry to sources of floods. So the whole premise is just wrong.

that's a ready made fishcake maker lol

@@KeithOlson ⚠️ God has said in the Quran: 🔵 { O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous - ( 2:21 ) 🔴 [He] who made for you the earth a bed [spread out] and the sky a ceiling and sent down from the sky, rain and brought forth thereby fruits as provision for you. So do not attribute to Allah equals while you know [that there is nothing similar to Him]. ( 2:22 ) 🔵 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. ( 2:23 ) 🔴 But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.( 2:24 ) 🔵 And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, "This is what we were provided with before." And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally. ( 2:25 ) ⚠️ Quran

9:45

Fish paste

Definitely, I put some footage of a bigger turbines (that uses the same method of generation) which look pretty deadly - my thought was the smaller/lighter ones would not crush the fish! My bad for not being clear with this! Thanks for the comment :D

Exactly what I was thinking 👍 A larger, slower moving, greater resistance, rounded edged blade, would be safer for aquatic life. The other model shown looked superior and had better numbers. If this design incorporated the snail shell vortex producing lead in water, the spinning ball could be smaller, remain in the centre and allow aquatic life to swim around it, providing there is space between the ball and walls.

Fish and Chips

Crushed, but not sliced. Greener death 😁

Have you used power to run a bitcoin miner yet sir? Please help us bring this technology to the world

What generator would you recommend for max efficiency for your buck?

Yeah, it would be better to add safety net to prevent fishes wandering into the devices. The net need to be replaced at regular interval tho, and the net do reduces power generated by the 'ball'.

..well thay do already exist...thay are called hydro electric power dams... ...and this guys have invented a very poor verision of a tesla turbine.... ..wouldent surprice me if thay maned to hype it and get some investments at wich point that suddenly dissapear... req investors that dont know anything about physics ... its a pipedream...litterally...

Nah. Manufacturer makes it clear that you're supposed to put a protective grate/screen solution in front of the turbine. (Not just for fish, but other debris as well.) a couple layers of painted expanded steel seems to be the favorite.

@@QuakeDragon Good point. I can't help wondering, though, if the fish can't get through then wouldn't you just go back to the more traditional turbine with double the efficiency?

@@GarthClarkson Yes, that is absolutely valid. For the SETUR-L (the large 5KW turbine) the use case for these is generally intended to be small deployments in remote areas where you can't (or shouldn't) have all that infrastructure buildup, such as the case of the concrete snail-shaped outlet. Case in point, the manufacturer primarily sends off-grid inverters, but if requested can certainly send the grid-tie capable ones. Additionally, the SETUR-L may have a low head requirement of only 1 meter, but it still requires 650 liters/second (170ish gallons/second) of water flow rate for nominal operation. With that kind of volume, the difference made by a couple of steel screens would 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑦 be marginal. (references: P.8 of SETUR-L user's manual, Rev. 5L-B)

yes but prone to barnacles, weed etc

Or you could rectify microwaves to power a magnetostrictive transducer to produce ultrasonic waves to stress piezoelectric materials Eg. Quartz or materials made from Zirconium ions 🎉

Doesn't sound very scaleable

@@marilynlucas5128 I’m not too proud to admit I had to look up those words. Rectifying antennas and magnetostrictive transducers sound like interesting technologies. Where would we be getting the microwave radiation though? If we’re using the rectifying antennas to harvest energy from sunlight, isn’t the energy content of the microwave portion of sunlight pretty small? If someone manages to get rectifying antennas working for the infrared or, better yet, visible part of the spectrum, that’d be pretty cool though. And is there a way to power magnetostrictive transducers without electricity? Because, if we’ve already got electricity, I don’t see why we’re converting it to mechanical force just to convert it back to electrical energy with piezoelectrics. Or maybe I’ve just completely misunderstood your idea.

So instead of instantly killing the fish, the flags will just b*tch slap them really hard?

Nah. Manufacturer makes it clear that you're supposed to put a protective grate/screen solution in front of the turbine. (Not just for fish, but other debris as well.) a couple layers of painted expanded steel seems to be the favorite. If a fish got into it, the force of accelerated water would push the fish into the rotor/confusor (which can be adjusted at install, if you're serious about preventing damage to aquatic critters) and, maybe knock it a time or two, before being kicked out the back. Unless it's something like a fry, it'd most likely survive the ordeal.

Your are right! Basically, the are always a cost of what you get

even if it does not touch the wall the speed these turbines spin at means there is enough blunt force to do damage.

@@QuakeDragon Well, if you are supposed to keep the fish out of the generator, you might aswell use a conventional model and just filter and bypass the generator with a side stream...

In theory the ball will never touch the wall because of the _bernouli effect_

There is also the problem of sediment deposition. Every turbine reduces the momentum of the water which results in greater sediment deposion behind the turbine.

​@@maxmustermann9587 That would be an issue in some setups for sure. 👍 Maybe several arranged laterally, maybe along a low head damn or the like would help alleviate that problem. It's worth a shot! 🤔

The way it works has nothing to do with a vortex, it's due to lift on the wobbling sphere, this guy's just confused about how it works.

I remember the Beyond 2000 shows. They had very interesting stuff.

Sounds like a tide generator.

Wow! Any info on the paperwork? Sounds fascinating.... Hope you find out more.

This is still a turbine as it translates the water flow into rotational energy. So more accurate to say bladeless instead of turbineless.

Yeah, ball should stay centered.

Bigger blades would help with that in principal. In theory that should allow slower rotation while recovering the same amount of energy.

Pressure differences kill fishes as well like peoples. There's could be many bars different before and after turbine or blades. So just keep fishes away from it. Much realistic way.

efficiency goes up with turbine speed, modern turbines spin as fast as the materials allow.

@@alanhat5252 I don't believe this is completely accurate. The blades have a flow rate that they are optimal for, it's a curve that peaks and then drops off. You don't want to design a blade that is optimised for a flow rate that can't be achieved given the source of that flow. That would be inherently inefficient. This is largely due to turbulence caused by the flow not being parallel to the surface causing flow seperation at non optimal flow rates. This should be much less of a factor in Tesla turbines and this ball turbine, as in theory the flows are designed to be parallel to the surfaces, so to remain laminar in nature. The blades do however get a mechanical torque advantage, but it's a trade off with the inefficiencies caused by flow seperation at non optimal flow rates. Tesla turbines tend to be more efficient at low flow rates, although arguably that's just because blades are typically design for efficiency at more typical flow rates I believe.

There is so much human or natural intervention that in any case there will be more or less of it in an area at one time or another. One more obviously will have an effect, but with our current weather conditions it is or all or nothing from one day to another. There was a story about the Nile and the appearance of animal species at its exit which would be due to dams. But scientifically it is very debated and it is directly related to what you are talking about

dredge silt and put it back on land it came from?

@@paulbartle8375 And use up more energy than you’re generating

@@paulbartle8375 as if dredging uses no energy. You can't extract more energy from a system than you'd have to use to put that system back in the original state, ever. If you could, that would be a perpetual motion machine. That is why we use coal, oil, nuclear power and solar power - those are non-renewable but we don't try to renew them, we just use them and they are gone. Sun is also non-renewable but it's just so HUGE we can't even dream of using it up in our lifetimes, so in principle it IS a finite resource.

Incorporate a gravity filter into the system and largely automate the removal might work. i.e. use physics to get the silt to drop in a convenient location for removal.

Why ? The air gap must be very small between the rotor and stator as this is where the magnetic field transfers from rotor to stator. A big gap has high losses.

From a roach’s perspective the options are being diced into bite sized chunks or a 1500rpm washing machine spin cycle.

power from sewage

@@futurestrader74 Diced or crushed/beaten. Neither sound great choices if I was a fish. But every little bit helps I guess

This might just be a misnomer from branding it as "Vortex hydrokinetics". In a typical turbine setup you'd be absolutely correct. In this case the vortex isn't directly driving the turbine. The offset hollow rotator and confusor are the magic elements that make this unstable rotation kick out enough torque. There may also be some gearing involved with the magnetic coupler (mfgr isn't clear on that.) That said, while the water velocity/head requirement is super low at 4 m/s, it still requires 650 liters/second (170-ish gallons/second) of water flow rate for the 5KW turbine to operate nominally. (Reference page 8 of the SETUR-L owner's manual.) So, a moderately sized river is still required. :\

literally what I thought watching this. Hydro turbines have wicket gates controlled by a governor which alters the flow of water through the turbine to keep the RPM constant, and makes adjustments as the LOAD requirements change. I don't see how this "bladeless" turbine is going to be practical, as it would need to be able to compensate very quickly. If not, it these bladeless turbine will never be commissioned and approved for connection to any power grids.

@@QuakeDragon PE=mgh. so...im getting 2,340,000L/hr. at 4M, gives me a PE of 25KWh. KE, at point of impact, or in this case, turbine blade... 25KWh, at 8.8m/s... a this point i couldnt be bothered going further... have to start guessing diameters and distances moved after impact and thats all a bit of a grey area here... other than... if you dont let the water flow at all... no work is done. block a hose at the end... no movement. no work. if the water flows freely, at full velocity with no restriction... no work is done. let the hose wave wildly. it has almost no mass to counteract the reaction of water exiting the nozzle. no work is done. strap it to a weight so it moves the weight at half the velocity, and oh my... work is done... the maximum amount of work that can be performed, the largest mass/weight that can be moved at the highest velocity by the energy contained in that moving fluid with momentum. that is... half the energy of the fluid in motion cannot be extracted. if you extract all of it, water doesnt FLOW anymore. at best, you get 12.5KWh from the 650L/s at 4M. then the generator combo? well... that all gets into what load the generator is working into, but again... same applies... 50/50. at best, you get 6.25KWh at the load powered by the generator powered by the turbine. now we delve into teh electrical equivalent of the same principle... "jacobs law"... once the load is the same resistance as the generator or source, thats it... half the energy in the generator, half in the load. any overload resistance either draws more current, at a lower potential, or draws less current at a higher potential... 50/50 is the point of maximum efficiency... half in the load, half in the generator... the irony of these "efficiency ratings"? you can only EVER extract HALF the energy. that is "100% efficiency". again...convert PE to KE, the fluid is traveling at max velocity, with no restriction, performing no work. convert KE to PE, there is ZERO velocity, and again... zero work done. the maximum amount of work one can extract is when the fluid is impeded to half its velocity as it transfers momentum to another object.

but its not... ;)

Look up destiny 2 titan wave generators. Something like that?

@@bossjosh423 Based on what I can find with a quick Google search, yeah, that looks pretty spot-on.

There are similar systems being tested based on buoyancy in seawater, to make use of the waves. And there also "sea buoys batteries" being studied. Basically, you use cheap electricity to reel the buoys to the bottom of the sea, and release them to recover (part of) the energy. If you have a dam which regularly floods and empties (thinking on the Panama channel and the like) you could reel the buoy when the water is low at almost no cost (since there would be no pulling) and then release it when you fill the dam. I'd say that's pretty solid for being based on a gas filled container in a liquid :p

it's likely to work but I would guess the efficiency is poor.

This is the best and most original comment I've seen under this video so far.

To claim that it would be able to run 24/7 is a best case scenario and is obviously is not taking into account seasonal changes such as ice, or reduced stream flows in drought conditions.

if i remember correctly tesla turbines need a fairly high fluid velocity to function properly

yea it would take many of disks to have any yield of power production in low velocity fluid.

Simular to arkamineese screw. & make the ball/ prop, egg shaped. Can still be fish safe. If design is right.

Looks like a lot of largely unbalanced force on the main shaft, so agree could be some maintenance/engineering challenges due to that.

"Come see the -violence- vibration inherent in the system!"

The water, along with the fish, is on the other side of the ball and if it’ll fit it’ll go on through with the water. I suppose you’d need to keep the bigger ones from getting in though.

It’s basically preventing any fish to enter in the first place, it’s not exactly fish safe to go through. He noted that this spinning ball funnel can be a much cheaper option?

@@MP-vc4nu The point was that you don't have to build an expensive "filter" system and can just have the fish go through the "turbine".

@@stanweaver6116 The ball rotates along the outside, sure swirl and water pressure will usually move the fish ahead of the ball, but if the fish does something stupid and gets close it might just get caught and turned into paste

Bitcoin mining solves that issue

It is an interesting concept, however I think in a permanent installation I could see this offset load running 24/7 causing quite a few problems with bearings and material fatigue.

On another note, towing it behind a vessel might be difficult to achieve, unless the unit was secured solidly as I believe the unit would most likely corkscrew behind the vessel as opposed to the desired operation.

i was thinking the same thing, the way i saw that thing violently moving looked like it would make minced meat from fishes. Frankly, the slow moving bladed version he showed that was supposed to be slow enough not to harm the fish seemed quite a bit more fish friendly, and likely has a higher efficiency.

I really don't know modern technology of grid control systems so I always wonder how electricity distributors controlling those "small power stations". I imagine it's not impossible to implement some sort of central control system for the grid, with many small suppliers, because as matter of the fact electricity companies buying electricity from small supplier even in my country. But I imagine it's better to use those small power station locally rather than sending it to the grid. Especially, hydro station is very easy to control because all the thing you have to do is close the valve to reduce the amount of electricity produced by the generator. I understand modern trend of "clean energy" is more like, selling electricity to the distributor but It feels like a bit off to me. Why they don't consume the electricity where it produced rather than sending into the grid?? Maybe I just don't understand how these system works but now we have a lot of way to produce electricity suits to the location we're living in. So for example, if we're living by the river we can install small hydro turbines or if we're living in the desert we can use solar panels (in this case we definitely need battery but I really don't know how frequently we need to replace batteries...considering the battery of my phone become incapable of storing electricity for five years or so, it's not long lived as we expect it to be I'm afraid) and consume the electricity within local area rather than sending it to the grid. And only when our small generator can not fulfill the demand of our area we can buy shortage from major supplier through the gird. I think it's more simpler than constructing "integrated grid system" or something (because basically that what electricity distributors are doing now, right?). Or actually modern grid systems are working in that way?? As you said in your comment I really can not find these information anywhere on the internet. After all we all have substation for the area we're living in. So All the thing we have to do "plug in" our generator at that location and consume and feed the electricity whenever our generator can not fill the demand of our local area. It seems like somehow easier and better...well, this is my amateur's intuition so probably I'm missing some thing, or I just don't know modern distribution system actually capable of it. Anyway, It's always mystery to me, how modern grids are distributing electricity from various generator scattered all over the place? Is that really cost efficient?

@@user-bx4vo2jc9r I think you understand both the technology and challenges better than you think. The part you leave out is political, where politicians will force or subsidize things that aren't effective, simultaneously blocking others from doing things that are effective. Remember, even in countries that claim otherwise, the electric grid is always 100% controlled by politicians- not engineers.

​@@user-bx4vo2jc9r In TL:DR form, you have large energy producers and adjustment power producers. Small hydro, solar etc falls into larger energy production bracket, where its drop in the bucket in comparison when rest put out hundreds of megawatts. Even if it was readily available all around, power needs in certain area like city can easily overwhelm even larger producer if lines outside are cut witch balance the use and production, causing those with in most likely run out of frequency and emergency cut out from grid, since just 0.5hertz can destroy equipment and that will be very VERY expensive bill who ever fucked up. More complex the machine is, more sensitive it is frequency changes, unless it was designed to work in different ranges but thats beside the point and each item design. Since you cant throttle nuclear power plant up and down fast, there are rapidly responding powerplants that are adjustment power producers, who can turn the whole plant off and on again in seconds to minutes. This is when grid is fully working. Due next question of where the power is cheapest and most practical to produce for instance cost of hauling the fuel around, plants are setup all over the place where its best suited and due the sizes and type of plants electricity might need to be moved long distances. When grid is damaged, larger area is cut out from power, then brought back in steps to locate where the damage is witch requires the adjustment power. During large storm many such events happen and adjusting power plants need to response in over production or under production, so frequency stays with in set standards. If it does not, that mean in worst case scenario ether totally fucked up electronics if fail safes fail, or most likely almost just as bad result: frequency collapse, where all plants emergency cut off from grid and whole country can go dark. Getting grid up from this situation is absolute fucking nightmare, witch is hella expensive and should be avoided in all costs. "Why they don't consume the electricity where it produced rather than sending into the grid??" Simple. Cost of production vs whats paid for it. You recall the world ending electricity prices in Europe? Well cause of this simple thing, Sweden and Norway produced shit ton of cheap energy since their productions costs were rather low. This power then was sold to Finland... witch sold all the excess and further sold it to Estonia, who sold it further. Top of that Finnish people were plead to save all the power they can for sake of the "environment" and that enough power would be available to everyone...all the saved witch was sold to Estonia for great profits who most likely did same thing. Just goes to show how we are scammed, with climate crisis etc bullshit. For small production its nice little extra but at best they can produce maybe a megawatt or two that gets lost to total production and mostly only useful to person who produces it. For instance my neighbor has top of the line larger solar setup. On winter his on mostly taking all the power from grid and summer producing some into the grid while producing most of his power least during the day... or starts the diesel generator when power price is high and sells this "green solar energy" to grid. This is just small scale how green energy scam is done by larger companies. This is just the bits i have learned from powerplants head electrician, but the whole topic is much much more complicated when we go from power production to systems in thems selfs globally and god damn politics and scams, but simply said yes it would be beneficial to have small scale power production, say macro nuclear reactors and utilize resources available, but micro hydro, etc if its not able to produce extra top of your own usage, is not really that practical in grid scale even if there was enough land and people installing these setups. Specially when you look into cities that consume most of that energy.

i was thinking the same, and for me the best solution is to use golf ball surface.