bmw have made it yes, been working on it for a bout 20 years. but its not going to be put into there cars yet. still good 8 to 10 years away they say.

unclewoja, the towers are already 50m off the ground, I dont think blades will be hitting the ground in the near future.

Furthermore, piston engined planes with a 2 or 3 blade prop are less efficient than jet engines so I'm trying to make a point here. Most windmills in history have well over a dozen blades to catch all the air going past while all these new wind farms have only 3 blades.

After an answer based on physics, not examples of what else uses what example.

Might have something to do with whether they are after speed or torque.

Grinding mills and so forth are chasing large amounts of torque to grind massive stones.
Modern electricity generating windmills are after faster speeds with less torque.
More sail area creates more torque, whereas a lighter turbine with less sail area creates more speed.
Also, jet engines in planes are totally diferent piston engines. They use controlled, constant combustion of fuel and expelled hot air to power, not propellers

Giveing you reasons relating to tip speeds not exceeding the speed of sound isn't good enough for you? Putting 20 blades in one of those things would result in a hub size of about 20m diameter. NOW do you understand anything I posted?

Also, there's no point having the blade scraping the ground, or anyehere near it as there's bugger all wind there compared to up higher.

I am a qualified commercial pilot, so if you want, I can give you a 4000 word essay on the subject.

Piston engines are also completely different to fan jet engines, which are different to turbo jet engines, which are different slightly to turbo props, which are different to scram jets, which are different to rockets, which are different to..... etc etc etc

I gave you the explanation you wanted in the fewest words possible. You didn't ask for a lengthy explanation including all the pyhsics so I didn't give you one. Please don't abuse me because of your own ignorange on the subject.

Sigh....

unclewoja, I don't see any abuse anywhere.

Please open the following photo in a picture editing program and show me the exact point these blades touch the ground.



Also, lets make a wild assumption the blades are 2m in length. Where is the 20 meter hub?

Now lets compare it to a windfarm blade assy:


Can I please have a lengthy explanation without you resorting to accusing me of ignorance of the subject, when I clearly asked ABOUT the subject?

My original comment was that SO much air is getting past the blades that it appears it could be made much more efficient by adding more blades to catch more wind, such as the example of the top picture.

My own thoughts - If the electricity generating windfarm needs the blades to spin as fast as possible, wouldn't more smaller blades equal less noise? The blades in top picture are clearly not aerodynamically designed as the bottom picture. On the other hand, more smaller blades plus a gear drive to increase the speed to the generator would again be much more efficient and almost insignificant extra cost in the grand scheme of things including mounting it in the ground, production costs, raw materials, cost of land etc.

Thoughts ?

Bozz (& others).

I'm sure there are alot of other people working on wind farms are alot smarter than us, and they've determined that the designs we see are the best method.

No point arguing it, unless you can provide some facts and figures to back up your arguments. A wind mill (farm style) serves a seperate purpose to that of a wind mill generator.

And hey (as the qeustion goes back to 'John') if you can provide some real facts, figures, proof. Let the world know.

Bozz, these wind generators have what us pilots call a CSU. A constant speed unit.

This adjusts the blade angle so that it is taking a cut through the air where the angle of attack of the blade is 4 degrees.

If you increase the number of blades in the hub to 20, and each blade had a 2" shaft into the hub, then with some calculations, you can see that the hub needs to become a lot bigger to accomodate all those shafts. In fact, if you assume there is no gap, in the hub, between all the shafts (but there is because the shafts have to couple into the CSU), the 20 shaft diametres will approximate the circumference of the hub. This is the smallest possible hub size.

Also, you'll notice in the picture, that the blade on the wind generator gets thicker and wider as it gets to the hub. This is because the speed of the blade cutting through the air at the hub is much slower that at the tips, so you need a bigger aerofoil to create the same amunt of thrust per square centimeter. This means that the end of the blade is far, far bigger that the shaft the blade is on. Let's say the end of the blade is 20cm wide. If you have 20 of them, you need a hub with a minimum of 4000cm circumference. That's 1278cm diameter.

Also, you are ignoring the problem of tip speed. It must stay below the speed of sound. This is, in round figures, 1000km/h.

So, let's assume that the blades are 2m long. That means every rev, the tip is traveling about 12.5m. The speed of sound in 16,667m/min. So, the turbine is limited to 1333 RPM before the tips exceed the speed of sound, not including for the diameter of the hub.

Now, if you keep the blade length the same, but add the diameter of the hub of 1.2m, you get a maximum rotational speed of about 1000 RPM. These are all, of course, hypothetical calculations and I'd assume that the blades are much bigger that has been theorised here.

Another thing you have to consider is that as the blade cuts through the air, it produced turbulence. Put the next blade too close to the trailing edge of the previous one, and all you get is a turbulent flow of air over the aerofoil instead of a nice laminar flow. That blade would produce very little thrust and hence, it's useless having it there.

The other thing that you have to consider in terms of the speed of the turbine is that it is there to PRODUCE power, not USE power. The faster you turn something, the more power you need to do it. Having smaller blades spinning @ 3000 RPM, while it might catch the same amount of energy from the wind, more of that energy is going into overciming the turbine's resistance to turning. It would be like driving your car down the freeway @ 100km/h with the engine doing 5000 RPM. Clearly that would not be as efficient as if the engine was doing 2000 RPM. It also wears things out quicker hence, increasing maintainance costs and increasing the cost of the electricity it generates.

Now, as to your comments about my commenting on your ignorance. You appear to take offence to being called ignorant on the subject because, as you put it, you ASKED about the subject. You imply that because you ASK for an answer, you are NOT ignorant of the answer to begin with, when clearly my friend, you are. While 'ignorant' is most commonly assosiated with a derogatory tone, it's simply a synonym to, say, unknowledgable.

Hi all.

A lot of interesting comments.
Well people yes i will certainly sent a video of the 3 litre v6 engine running on hydrogen in the not to distant future.
When i use the term six times more punch out of hydrogen , that is just an example.

Hydogen contains 100s more power than fuel, The process of hydrgen separation from water is clearly quite easily done.

Ive achieved it and when the time comes i will certainly let you all see it.

No the governments of the world dont like the idea of this as fuel is profits to all of them.
They sit there and give everyone excuses as to why petrol prices are going up, but at the end of the day i guess someone and that is all of us , have to pay for the war in iraq and this is how they do it.

Everytime israel stirs the pot there is a war somewhere in the world.
Do you realize that since the u.s. criminal invasion of iraq, that fuel prices have since gone up. sO I GUESS that means no more competition from no one , so now they can raise there prices so far up and they get away with it.

If people dont get together and drive the message to these clowns well then they will continually treat you like a bunch of fools and that my friends worries me a lot.
You have all been brainwashed to believe everything that you hear , but at the end of the day one thing to remember is that we all have our own brains and intelligence .

My point is that i will do whatever i want to do on this earth whether anybody likes it or not.

Whatever...
Don't know about anywhere else, but fuel jumped back up 6 cents here today. Had finally got down to 118.9, but it's back up to 123.9 today. Good thing i put a full tank into both cars last week...

This comment makes no sense.
Iraq was trading oil to America before the invasion, ala the UN's Oil for Food agreement.
The difference between then and now is, with Iraq open to Oil Companies, there will more development of current Iraqi Oil Fields, and possibly even the discovery of new fields.
There is no, and never will be, competition against OPEC.

And please, do post this video of the hydrogen V6 running.

Although it sounds like you are starting to make excuses already.

Still closer to 130.9cpl around Canberra.

Alright buddy, time to shut you up once and for all.

If your 'hydrogen engine' works explain this to me:

WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM?

As I see it you start off with water - which is a stable molecule, you add energy in the form of electrons to split the hydrogen and oxygen. lets say 20MJ (mega joules). Then we react these two elements (burn) to produce heat and pressure (about 20MJ) which drives the pistons in your engine (I assume this V6 has pistons). You then get water again, in fact exactly the same ammount you started with, requireing another 20MJ to split back into hydrogen and oxygen.
Now you cant get this electrical energy from the engine becasue all this burning and moving of pistons and vehicle has used up some of the energy and wasted the rest as heat through the block, exhaust etc.
Overall a net loss of energy. In fact if the engine was driving a generator you would probabily only get 3MJ back as electrical energy.

You can make a hydrogen engine run on hydrogen but you cant split the water on-board without another source of energy.

By the way the specific calorific value of premium petrol is 42.7MJ/Kg, Hydrogen is 120MJ/Kg so it's only 3 times more energy by mass, by volume its very low. Which is why you need ultra high pressure direct injection. -Source: Bosch Automotive Handbook edition 6.

Basically stop wasting our time, it's not even funny anymore.

Whats the matter sir. Does the truth hurt.

Like i said ive allready created it and no matter how much you doubt me , fact remains that the art of splitting water to produce hydrogen has been achieved by me.
Not only is that a fact i also went a step further . If you store the gas like that well then you have a time bomb.
Ive also separated the oxygen out of it which now allows me to store it safely.
In a simple experiment i opened the pressure vavle on the container and lit up the hydrogen which is almost an invinsible flame. It didnt travel back into the container.
If however you where to store the hydrogen and oxygen in the same bottle and you try to light the valve, well then you have a home made bomb.
Flame will travel into the container .

It has been done before and ive done it again.

I can understand peoples doubts but let me assure you that the people who support me in this idea, will infact receive these plans first.
And no this is not a gimmick but the real thing.

My design doesnt use brutal force electrlolysis, by that i mean i dont use high amperes to produce it,. The exact opposite is though.
Half an ampere if that. The Rotary pulse generator and 50 percent duty cycle which i get off my car alternator.

The design of the capacitor is not critical because again the system doesnt use high amps to create the hydrogen.
I do however suggest either stainless or platinum materials in the design of the capacitor, which will ultimately mean maintanance free capacitor chamber.
I also use a oxygen from hydrogen separator as so to store it safely without the slightest chance of a blow up.
I do hope that this gives people some insight on how my system is operating and to get the sceptics to believe.

You still didnt answer where the energy is coming from.

The electricity from the alternator is powered by the hydrogen it already made. That is not an energy input.