Wow...but 600% is not from a reliable source

I think this is way better than the normal wind turbines; assuming it does what they say it does. I can see it being safer for birds since the traditional wind turbines have that problem of 'whacking' flying feathered creatures.

Okay, this tech gets hits on at least four of my questions that trigger red flags about bogus wind tech. Like many people who pay attention to wind energy, I'm getting tired of claims like this being taken even moderately credulously.
http://barnardonwind.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/invest-carefully-wind-energy-innovations-are-rarely-kosher/

This screams bogus science. A standard commercial windmill is roughly 40% efficient (the theoretical maximum is around 60%). If this claims that it its 300% + more efficient than that it is 120% efficient, generating 20% more power than was in the wind. Magic! Or bad science.
Also this canard about generating power from lower windspeeds is also nonsense. The amount of power available in winds below 5mph is not worth harvesting. Wind power increases with the cube of the wind speed. In other words: doubling the wind speed gives eight times the wind power. So the power difference between 5 and 10 mph winds is 800%! It makes sense to optimize for higher windspeeds, because 1 hour of 10mph is worth 8 hours of 5mph and 64 hours at 2.5mph and 512 hours at 1.25mph.
Finally, a windmill can only extract energy from the wind that contacts it, so to get the same amount of power as a 20' diameter windmill rotor, you would need a "funnel" of equivalent size. It is hard to imagine the economics of making giant massive funnels is going to be better than a slender tower and a few slender blades.

Michaelc, that which we can't see might hold the answers. We can't see the turbines themselves or where the venturi inlets go. Stacked turbines, each with its own supply of air compressed as it enters the inlets, might be able to achieve the stated efficiency,

As others have said its likely bogus or bad data, but i'm holding out hope that its real or even if the data is abit off that its still an approvment. Even if its the same as others but cheaper it would still be good.
I think its a common reaction when something that comes along that seems to good to be true, that it normaly is.
But sometimes not.
To the person who said that for it to correct there would have to be 20% more energy than whats in the wind, doesn't account for how this device uses a funnel to bring wind from a much larger area and increases the wind speed, which as he states himself multiplies the energy collected. Not saying that makes the original article right, only that i think there is room for this to theoretically be possible.
We will have to watch this and see.

It is a mistake to use the same sized turbine for the comparison. A proper comparison would match the effective inlet area of the duct at the top of the Invelox tower to a conventional wind turbine's inlet area.
It is also a mistake to use the exact same turbine blades. The concentrated wind speed is higher than the free stream wind speed and properly designed turbines will have an airfoil shape that has been designed optimally for the average wind speed. Since the average wind speed is different in a conventional turbine vs. a concentrating turbine like Invelox, you cannot use the same exact airfoil for comparison.
These mistakes would be acceptable at an eighth grade science fair, but where investor dollars are at stake it feels downright criminal.

That someone would try to trash this idea sight unseen makes you wonder about their true motives. Looks like a great idea to me, even if it's the same efficiency.

As it says in the article these figures need to be treated with caution. But a couple of ideas occur to me. One of the reasons it may be difficult to generate power from low wind speeds is inertia of the entire system needs to be overcome, and losses to turbulence might be more than can be generated at low speeds. But from looking at the photos, it could be that with the funnel design will increase the wind VELOCITY while not necessarily increasing the total volume of air passing through the system. It could be similar to exchanging volts for amps in electricity, where the same amount of power can be utilised in different ways. 12 volts won't jump a gap in a spark plug, but if the voltage is multiplied many times, the same amount of POWER can be used to make a spark.
Secondly, since the blades of the actual rotor would be smaller than a traditional wind turbine of equal surface area of capture, the lack of mass would mean that again, inertia would consume less of the windpower. Thus it may be theoretically possible to generate more power from the same amount of wind.
Thirdly, whilst the mouth(s) of the funnels don't move, this would mean that on "back" side of the turbine head there may be a reduction in air pressure, a vortex, which theoretically could be used to generate power by using a second generator which runs in reverse. Crudely, it might use "suck" wind instead of "blow" wind.
Whilst I treat the 600%, or even 300% figures with caution, I'll say that this device may have more going for it than appears at first glance. I'll wait and see.

I live in a "Low Wind" country. This method of funneling the wind so that low wind speed can also be used to drive generators means that there is much more generating time available. I like it.