A California CEO is bringing his product across the nation this week to
The Daily News describes the WindWing in detail:
A large parallelogram that resembles a set of oversized venetian blinds on a metal rod, WindWing has six wing panels that can tilt up and down in order to create energy. Sensors located behind the panels are able to detect wind direction and strength and adjust the panels accordingly.
The energy is pulled into the stem on the machine and pulled into a box at its base, where it can be converted by an electrical pump into electricity, compressed air or put through a water pump.
"Have you ever stuck your hand out a car window?" Kelley asked. "Then you know how the WindWing works. Your hand tilts up as it is pushed up by the wind and down as the wind pushes it down; all you have to do is direct it."
Kelley says that traditional turbine propellers capture only a fraction of the energy that could be harnessed from wind, namely because their surface area isn’t large enough to capture and convert very much wind. WindWing can run efficiently in any type of weather.
Source: Newburyport Daily News; Photo via flickr by nualabugeye.
Hits: 8780
Comments (36)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Clinch, July 16, 2008
I like innovative new ideas like this, but it irritates me when they make claims of being cheaper and/or more efficient, without sufficient data to back up their claims.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Aaron, July 16, 2008
Wouldn't this work better and be self aligning if it were designed for the wind coming the opposite way?
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, July 17, 2008
I understand how it works, but I'm not seeing how it will be able to turn to face the wind.
-
- +0
-
-
written by al, July 17, 2008
I'm saying first off I don't know much about mechanics or efficency, but these looks to me, that it would be much more inefficent as the up down mechanism has to effectively stop and start, while a turbine just goes round. Surely thats loosing lots of potential energy in doing that.
Anyone with real knowledge want to comment?
Anyone with real knowledge want to comment?
-
- +0
-
-
written by The Food Monster, July 17, 2008
http://thefoodmonsterblog.blogspot.com
I always wondered when somebody would get inspiration for something cool and creative from the airplane games we played as children.
I always wondered when somebody would get inspiration for something cool and creative from the airplane games we played as children.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Clinch, July 17, 2008
This could be made rotatable, by using a few pulleys that go inside the central column.
As for the up-down motion, it would only stop for a moment, and the movement would probably be better described as an oscillation than up-down, so probably wouldn't be that inefficient, and transfer of wind energy to the generator seems more direct/efficient than for turbines.
All though none of this can be said for sure until they actually build a prototype, and start getting some data.
As for the up-down motion, it would only stop for a moment, and the movement would probably be better described as an oscillation than up-down, so probably wouldn't be that inefficient, and transfer of wind energy to the generator seems more direct/efficient than for turbines.
All though none of this can be said for sure until they actually build a prototype, and start getting some data.
-
- +0
-
-
written by bob, July 17, 2008
Isn't this just a big and complicated version of the wind belt?
It's like the chopped the middle out of an oscillating piece of mylar and hooked it up to a pump.
The wind belt is a much more efficient design.
It's like the chopped the middle out of an oscillating piece of mylar and hooked it up to a pump.
The wind belt is a much more efficient design.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dan, July 17, 2008
Why use sensors? why not have the shape of the airfoil such that when the wing is in the upward position, the tendency of the airfoil is to produce a negative lift and vice versa when at the bottom?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Seymour, July 17, 2008
Why not make it go left-right-left-etc instead of up-down-up-etc. ?? Then the weight of the "wings" could be supported from smaller vertical shafts directly anchored on the ground...thus doing away with the big (expensive) central tower.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Cristian, July 17, 2008
Sensors are necessary, because if it were to auto-align, then the system would come to a stable state where it wouldn't move.
-
- +0
-
-
written by James Woods, July 17, 2008
Dude that is truly geeky! I love it.
JT
www.FireMe.To/udi
JT
www.FireMe.To/udi
-
- +0
-
-
written by Andy, July 17, 2008
I could definitely imagine an auto-alignment system. I thought of using a system of lines that would pull tight at the extremes of motion, but what about simply using a barrier that the airfoil will hit, causing it to tilt to the other direction?
This might be slightly less speedy than the system proposed with sensors, but could be more efficient overall. I hope I wouldn't need to draw a picture to get this point across...
I also like the idea of the airfoil taking a horizontal path, although that could make the whole auto-alignment against the wind more difficult. I don't see why they couldn't use a fixed rudder with a vertical foil motion to accomplish this. I guess the difficulty here might amount to getting the whole system (airfoil to pump) connected and maintaining efficient output.
This design does have potential for sure. I'm glad to see a continued flow of new ideas for alternative energy!
This might be slightly less speedy than the system proposed with sensors, but could be more efficient overall. I hope I wouldn't need to draw a picture to get this point across...
I also like the idea of the airfoil taking a horizontal path, although that could make the whole auto-alignment against the wind more difficult. I don't see why they couldn't use a fixed rudder with a vertical foil motion to accomplish this. I guess the difficulty here might amount to getting the whole system (airfoil to pump) connected and maintaining efficient output.
This design does have potential for sure. I'm glad to see a continued flow of new ideas for alternative energy!
-
- +0
-
-
written by C.L., July 17, 2008
This link should give you insight to the resemblance I can envision by looking at this operating spectacle!
http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~tbardin/html/bird.html
http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~tbardin/html/bird.html
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brian, July 17, 2008
Why not put a wind turbine on the end in place of the counterbalanced weight? Then you generate power two ways!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jim, July 17, 2008
By modifying the turbine rotation to be similar to an oil well, instead of a butter churn, I could see a constant rotation, allowing for a constant electrical generation. But the amount of space needed and the limited consistency of ground based winds, makes this useful for more specialized applications. Perhaps hydrogen generation or water pumping. I see Pickensplan ( a brute force method) and high altitude wind rotors (skyWindPower) of being more long term viable options, assuming a government (i.e. US) can make energy independence a real goal for the country and create an initiative similar to the Man on the Moon program. The impacts would be everywhere (use wind for electric, to transfer Nat. Gas to autos, to limit coal usage, and lower the oil money leaving the US economy). Now to read the the companies website and see if I stuck my foot too deeply in my mouth. Good luck, everyone
-
- +0
-
-
written by Michael, July 17, 2008
Every time the wings stop at the end of their swing they are wasting energy.
A continuous rotary motion is necessarily mechanically simpler as well as more efficient, not to mention that all large generators are rotary, not reciprocating.
As far judging efficiency is concerned you can make a rough comparison to running (reciprocating) vs riding a bike (rotary) the same speed.
A continuous rotary motion is necessarily mechanically simpler as well as more efficient, not to mention that all large generators are rotary, not reciprocating.
As far judging efficiency is concerned you can make a rough comparison to running (reciprocating) vs riding a bike (rotary) the same speed.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Clinch, July 17, 2008
But you could just as easily say that wind turbines waste energy because of the huge gaps in between the three blades that are just letting wind pass through.
No design is going to be 100% efficient, but I'd rather wait for some conclusive data before I dismiss this as inefficient.
No design is going to be 100% efficient, but I'd rather wait for some conclusive data before I dismiss this as inefficient.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dave, July 18, 2008
I'm an engineering student and this is more efficient, check it out.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214132664034&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214132664034&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dave, July 18, 2008
Michael is an idiot, you can not compare running to riding a bike EVER. A bike has gears, you do not know anything. Also, you are wrong about assuming this used a reciprocating generator, you car engine has pistons firing in a reciprocating motion but manages to turn a transmission. (I know you just got a hard on because you think that you know something about rotary engines being more efficient but that is combustion not wind power, with wind power you want the higher surface area to catch the wind.)
My other post has what I think is theoretically the best design, though I'm working on improvements on it.
My other post has what I think is theoretically the best design, though I'm working on improvements on it.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Queeg, July 18, 2008
To work equally well in both up and down directions he's going to need a symmetrical airfoil.
The only real aircraft that you see symmetrical airfoils on are aerobatic aircraft that need to fly as well inverted as the do upside up. Regular aircraft don't use symmetrical airfoils because they're less efficient.
That, plus the amount of energy that's going to spent accelerating the entire wing at each end of the stroke makes me think this isn't too promising.
You also wouldn't want to only support the wing at the center the way they have - the bending loads ( and structure required ) are way lower if you support the ends, also. They'd be better off going to a horizontal cylinder configuration where the wings are supported at the ends and rotate around a horizontal axis.
I don't expect to see this being very successful.
The only real aircraft that you see symmetrical airfoils on are aerobatic aircraft that need to fly as well inverted as the do upside up. Regular aircraft don't use symmetrical airfoils because they're less efficient.
That, plus the amount of energy that's going to spent accelerating the entire wing at each end of the stroke makes me think this isn't too promising.
You also wouldn't want to only support the wing at the center the way they have - the bending loads ( and structure required ) are way lower if you support the ends, also. They'd be better off going to a horizontal cylinder configuration where the wings are supported at the ends and rotate around a horizontal axis.
I don't expect to see this being very successful.
-
- +0
-
-
written by bergaliv, July 18, 2008
Funny, i thought of this very idea some time ago. I built a very small model, just for the heck of it, and it worked just fine.
I had it the other way around though, so that the wind came from the other side, and the tower could rotate. That way the "wings" always faced the wind automaticly.
I moved out of my house at that point, so I didn't get a chance to test it with a large working version, but I will as soon as I move to another house. I didn't use airfoils, just flat plates as wings. I don't belive that the airfoil will do anything in this case. It's simply the force of the wind pushing it up and down.
I think that the idea is sound, and perfect for smaller systems where you don't want a large tower with a rotating propeller
I had it the other way around though, so that the wind came from the other side, and the tower could rotate. That way the "wings" always faced the wind automaticly.
I moved out of my house at that point, so I didn't get a chance to test it with a large working version, but I will as soon as I move to another house. I didn't use airfoils, just flat plates as wings. I don't belive that the airfoil will do anything in this case. It's simply the force of the wind pushing it up and down.
I think that the idea is sound, and perfect for smaller systems where you don't want a large tower with a rotating propeller
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brian, July 18, 2008
This just seems like a long way around the mountain. It has more moving parts than a turbine, so I would think it would take more maintenance. It is also going through a few levels of directional change, which I would think would reduce efficiency. I like the vertical mounted idea presented by AL. It could then rotate side to side on a single vertical pole, eliminating the need for the bulky 'piston' rod and chamber.
Sidenote, dont you think this would make more noise than a low-rpm modern turbine?
All of the teeter-totter oil rigs I have seen make a racket when they change directions!
Sidenote, dont you think this would make more noise than a low-rpm modern turbine?
All of the teeter-totter oil rigs I have seen make a racket when they change directions!
-
- +0
-
-
written by PJ W, July 18, 2008
Well, ok lets say its sort of a 'new' thing but then as old as Leonardo, and what is it for again?
-
- +0
-
-
written by codesuidae, July 18, 2008
You know what would be even better? You could turn it on it's side and make it 'fly' around in a circle so it never has to change directions. Then you can get rid of the linkages and turn a shaft directly.
You could call it a 'wind turbine'.
Oh, wait...
You could call it a 'wind turbine'.
Oh, wait...
-
- +0
-
-
written by JD, July 19, 2008
Reverse it with a directional vane and you have got the alignment sort it out. It amazes me that people who are capable of having great ideas can't see the wood for the trees.... As Drooper from Banana Splits used to say when asked why he was always dragging round a peice of rope....'you ever tried pushing one'
we'll get there one day..........
we'll get there one day..........
-
- +0
-
-
written by Clinch, July 20, 2008
If you had it the other way round, there would be wind disruption from the central pole, it's the same reason they have wind turbines facing the wind, rather than on the back of the pole.
-
- +0
-
-
written by tussock, July 21, 2008
Kelley says that traditional turbine propellers capture only a fraction of the energy that could be harnessed from wind, namely because their surface area isn’t large enough to capture and convert very much wind.
OK, they do only capture a fraction, that fraction just happens to be better than 90% of the ideal efficiency.
But surface area? No, dude, swept area. See many propeller blades that flare out at the end to increase surface area? No?
He's either an idiot who's going to lose his shirt or a con man who's going to take everyone else's.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mike Hallett, July 22, 2008
Let us hope the inventor gets to read through some of the above comments because a few are very constructive and make a lot of sense. Some don't. :D
-
- +0
-
-
written by richard, July 24, 2008
There is lots of confusion by people who try to use coal-fired steam engine approaches to efficiency to wind turbines. The big difference is that wind is unlimited, unlike coal, so efficiency doesn't really matter in the same way. Also, modern turbines are actually pretty near the theoretical limit anyway. The theoretical maximum efficiency (in terms of extraction of kinetic energy from the air) of any wind turbine (of any shape or design) is about 60%. This is called the Betz limit. Modern wind turbines are already amazingly close to this.
-
- +0
-
-
written by gianni, July 26, 2008
As I understand it, in order to extract energy from a fluid (like air), you have to slow it down. If you extracted all the energy then the air behind the device would stop. Incoming air would then have nowhere to go, you would have to use part of energy of the incoming air to move the old air out of the way. The exact energy efficiency depends on density and compressibility (so it's different for water). I know that turbines "look" inefficient, but perhaps someone wiser than I could comment on whether this is because (naively) they are leaving room for the stale air to get out of the way before the next blade comes around.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ken upton, July 27, 2008
EB engineering UK copied it and built the stingray machines (Ocillating wings ) . I50,000kw and others which are bigger,which have been working in the UK seas for years. It is better to line up with the dynamic flow.But to collect real amounts of RE .Machines have to work in high time and high
density factors to collect RE . Water is 800 times more dence and old man river newer stops . Wet energy is where the real RE is not in fickle wind.
We now have the Hapcab, which will become the most
powerful machine ever . Wet kites in river or tidal
flow collecting energy with a non stop cable dragline
system.
Our charity in Spain www.4paz.org Is looking for partners for this revelutionary idea .
are a
density factors to collect RE . Water is 800 times more dence and old man river newer stops . Wet energy is where the real RE is not in fickle wind.
We now have the Hapcab, which will become the most
powerful machine ever . Wet kites in river or tidal
flow collecting energy with a non stop cable dragline
system.
Our charity in Spain www.4paz.org Is looking for partners for this revelutionary idea .
are a
-
- +0
-
-
written by Tom Jolly, August 26, 2008
Alignment of the vanes can be acquired merely by having the vanes on the downstream side of the tower. They'll automatically align with the wind direction; no control system is necessary at all. If the power shaft going to the ground is through the central axis, rotation of the vane tower ceases to be an issue. And having the generator component on the ground for easy access for servicing has got to be a big bonus. Lastly, the fact that these systems won't be "bird killers" will make all the environmentalists happy, and the fact they're quiet will make all the locals who have them in their back yard happy. This is a great solution to many of the problems existing wind generators have.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ted rees, August 26, 2008
I think the above comments cover most of correct criticism. The first thought is that the wings should be behind the pole. The second is that it is crazy to oscillate back and forth. To do that efficiently requires a big spring. Not having finite element modeling for air flow, it would seem that the 3 blade air turbine leaves a lot of space for air to pass without doing much work. But maybe it is near the Betz limit? The best solution needs a simple robust mechanical solution that can stand up to gale force winds.
-
- +0
-
-
written by helpfulguy, August 26, 2008
I'm not going to say if this would work or not but looks like the whole base would have to turn with the top to track the wind or the "drive rod" would get twisted.
-
- +0
-
-
written by WindGenMan, August 26, 2008
Existing horizontal axis blades already use a lift profile very similar to that of an airplane wing. Rotating blades around a horizontal axis reduces the effect of opposing forces such as weight and drag. This is the reason, after years of research, the configuration of modern megawatt class wind turbines have remained the same. Competition between manufacturers is fierce and contracts go to those systems that are able to best harness energy from wind. If there were a more efficient configuration, manufacturers of utility scale turbines would have discovered it years ago. Unfortunately, there are still people out there who claim to have built a better mouse trap by defying the laws of physics.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ntopics, February 09, 2009
Its good to see new wind power machine designs,
so that they can be compared with others.
thanks from tony
so that they can be compared with others.
thanks from tony
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
JUL 16
"This design is far better and requires no sensors; http://www.econolo..."
View all Comments