Slowburn February 22, 2012 10:48 PM It\'s a mechanical nightmare that will break down constantly. Jim Parker February 23, 2012 02:15 AM Like a stalling canard? Todd Dunning February 23, 2012 03:18 AM Why is it so trendy and cool to come up with laughably bad alternative power? Does it get chicks? Pat O'Leary February 23, 2012 07:48 AM I suspect it was originally to be an Art \"Installation\" but he found there was some unused grant funding in the Alternative Energy kitty. Who knows? Maybe the walkers in the Peak District will need their iPhones recharged - this should do it. jeremy.davies February 23, 2012 08:28 AM Fine in principle, but as Slowburn says, it will be a a clattering, squeaking with a completely uneccesary amount of components = durability and performance nightmare = not ever going to be cost effective. I am also keen to understand where this can be installed that would be \'difficult\' for conventional three bladers. I heard of a VAWT version of this that failed miserably at the recent PowerFOB MOD trials... Folly I am afraid..... who\'s money is funding the Future Fund? - hopefully not mine as a tax payer? Mzungu_Mkubwa February 23, 2012 11:29 AM Looks like a clumsy reverse-cyclocopter concept. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclogyro) I agree with what\'s been said: the more moving parts, the more expensive to fabricate and maintain it\'ll be. Additionally, this appears to be uni-directional. How does it turn to face the wind when direction changes? IMO, the helical vertical-axis eggbeater types are the most appealing for home-owner level implementation. Mel Tisdale February 23, 2012 12:57 PM Looks more like Heath Robinson than Heath Evdemon. I bet you could put a savonius rotor in the same volume of space this contraption takes up and get more out of it. Also, not only would it be quieter, I suspect, it would be just as safe in a high wind if designed properly. Avril Stalker February 23, 2012 01:21 PM Can\'t sing? Can\'t Act? Can dance a little? You guys crack me up. Island Architect February 23, 2012 01:52 PM No single element in in the engineering world has drawn so many absurd concepts. I wonder if we can sell that to Sam Williams for his advanced cruise missile engines. The fact remains that all the goofballs have been following the 1946 NASA design with airfoils when airfoils are used for entirely different purposes. Even the Old Dutch and Aermotor inventors new better. And the passel of absurd designers have all abandoned any concern for efficiency whatsoever as if engineering princples are frivolous. Never do they test and publish efficiencies. Certifications for nothing mean nothing. The world needs a test and development centrer where a proper engineering approach to development can be taken. Politicians promoting and promulgating the 20% efficiency designs are whacked. In Canada their throats were slit. Bill Allison achieved the Betz limit of 59% efficiency. Why doesn\'t someone try and prove him wrong? Dead flat blades, highly polished SS construction and gaps to eliminate the cone of resistance are necessary. This is chitty chitty bang bang stuff. Bill Dickens Dawar Saify February 23, 2012 02:20 PM Hey, why is everyone attacking a good thing, stop it, Atleast for any good effort or you guys try making it. I once made a similar project. The problems I faced: 1. All parts have to be precise and balanced, otherwise it simply doesn\'t move or moves irratically or inefficiently. 2. Even a small amount of dust or dirt more on one side disbalances it. 3. Birds too sit on it and their dirt also disbalances it. But a larger project can benefit from Wind different between upper and lower levels.