Gadgeteer
Something about this doesn't add up. They claim this was developed on a supercomputer, yet they need funding through Kickstarter. They claim lower is better for aesthetic reasons, but in reality, higher is better because wind speed and power density increases with altitude.
Daishi
That seems normal to me. Most kickstarter projects already have a prototype before they launch through kickstarter. The kickstarter money is used to work out kinks and produce in volume, not to design the product.
>They claim lower is better for aesthetic reasons, but in reality, higher is better because wind speed and power density increases with altitude.
Right, that isn't contradictory.
Scion
I think one man's supercomputer is another man's ordinary computer. Also, running simulations on super computers is probably not that expensive assuming you've set up the simulation(s) before hand all ready to run. In that case the per hour charges are only for the actual scenario runs. The amount of the kickstarter is not specified. If they were looking for a couple of thousand dollars I'd agree with Gadgeteer that it seems a bit odd, but they could be looking for 10s/100s of thousands.
Higher altitude has more wind (in general) but the point is you can generate useful power at a lower altitude. The Darwind5 is aimed at small / residential power generation (maybe small farm / semi-rural type of thing) not national power grid. In those instances aesthetics and practicality are more important.
nutcase
Anyone who moves their aeroturbine closer to the ground is removing it from the resource.. It has the same effect as putting a shade over your solar panels.
Joel Detrow
What's the proposed price point?
dchall8
Higher is also better because sand, dirt, and grit tend to be nearer the ground. The thrust bearing for VAWTs is at the bottom of the rotor. When that fills with dirt, the rotor becomes much less efficient. One of the design criteria should be ease of removal and replacement of the thrust bearing.
jerryd
It can't make the power they claim and certainly not low down out of the wind power source.
Yevgenyi Gorbachev
"the wind power source"? big, fancy name for the sun, right?
most wind turbines automatically feather once the wind exceeds their design speed, which is surprisingly low (long blades develop very high tip speeds at low rpm), so there's a very specific upper limit to how much is better.
as to the article, the claimed 35% improvement sounds good, but in reality, wind turbines only produce about 15% of their plated capacity; moving the bar up to 20% still means they're wasting 80% of their capital investment's potential.
Yevgenyi Gorbachev
"the wind power source"? big, fancy name for the sun, right?
most wind turbines automatically feather once the wind exceeds their design speed, which is surprisingly low (long blades develop very high tip speeds at low rpm), so there's a very specific upper limit to how much is better.
as to the article, the claimed 35% improvement sounds good, but in reality, wind turbines only produce about 15% of their plated capacity; moving the bar up to 20% still means they're wasting 80% of their capital investment's potential.
Trent Nicolajsen
If this Unit was Placed in Mountain regions with strong up and down draft winds this is where this Unit will be superior over the standard models that can not capture up and down, or side way winds. Testing it on the flat open plane rather then mountain tops perhaps does not show what it really can do.