Shopping? Check out our latest product comparisons

Filter feeding basking shark inspires more efficient hydroelectric turbine

By

February 7, 2011

The Strait Power turbine inspired by the basking shark

The Strait Power turbine inspired by the basking shark

Image Gallery (5 images)

Studying the bumpy protrusions on the fins of humpback whales has already led to more efficient wind and tidal power turbines and now nature is once again the source of inspiration for a new and more efficient hydroelectric turbine. The latest source of biomimicry is the basking shark, which industrial design student Anthony Reale has borrowed from to create "strait power," a water-powered turbine generator that tests have shown is 40 percent more efficient than current designs.

Despite being the second largest shark in the ocean, the basking shark is generally considered harmless to humans as it is a filter feeder. It swims with its mouth open to sift zooplankton, small fish and invertebrates from the water before the water is expelled through extended gill slits that nearly encircle its whole head. Although this flow of water assists in the shark’s swimming, Reale recognized that the shape of the shark’s body also played an important role.

With the basking shark’s jaw able to stretch up to 1.2 meter (3.9 ft) in width, a pressure differential is created as the shark swims. As with the wings of an airplane, the water pressure is greater along the straight bottom, while the curved surface of the shark’s body increases the distance the water has to travel, resulting in lower pressure across the shark’s top.

This pressure differential helps draw the water out of the basking shark’s gills and allows the basking shark to be only filter feeder shark that relies solely on the passive flow of water through its pharynx to feed. Other filter feeder sharks, the whale shark and megamouth shark, assist the process by suction or actively pumping water into their pharynxes.

With this in mind, Reale designed his ‘Strait Power’ turbine with a double converging nozzle or an opening within an opening. The water enters the turbine through the first opening and the second nozzle – like the shark’s gills – compresses the water and creates a low-pressure zone to draw the water through and generate more energy.

Reale came up with the design for his senior project at the College for Creative Studies (CCS) in Detroit and recently had the opportunity to put it to the test at the University of Michigan’s (UM) Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory. The UM researchers with whom Reale collaborated were interested as they had been working on something similar to provide power for remote research camps in Alaska.

Subjected to 200 hours of testing in UM’s 100-yard-long (91 m), 22-foot-wide (6.7 m), 10-foot-deep (3 m) tow tank, Reale’s 900-pound (408 kg) turbine model made mostly of wood, screwed together and sealed with marine paint came out looking battered and bruised. But the results were promising with the researchers saying the design improved the power output of a single blade by around 40 percent – a figure that Reale expects to improve upon with future versions.

Reale has filed a patent for the technology and has designed five potential commercial uses of the Strait Power system ranging from a portable and collapsible version for charging small electrical devices designed for outdoor and military use, up to industrial versions with 10-foot (3 m) diameter blades for powering high-power electrical generators of 40,000 watts and higher.

Via designboom

About the Author
Darren Quick Darren's love of technology started in primary school with a Nintendo Game & Watch Donkey Kong (still functioning) and a Commodore VIC 20 computer (not still functioning). In high school he upgraded to a 286 PC, and he's been following Moore's law ever since. This love of technology continued through a number of university courses and crappy jobs until 2008, when his interests found a home at Gizmag.   All articles by Darren Quick
Tags
14 Comments

Absolutely Bravo Anthony! This may well be one of the most important articles ever printed in Gizmag.

The 40% advance is due to one thing similar to what Bill Allison did for wind power.

Rather than try and build airfoils or hydofoils Mr. Real has taken the opposite approach, build angled resistors. That is the exactly the same principle that allowed Allison to achieve the theoretical maximum efficiency of 59% for his wind engines.

Mr. Real may even find higher efficiencies with dead flat blades in section.

If he researched what Allison did in wind power he might find fame in that field as well.

Contrary to the logic expressed in the article water is non compressible but it can vary in velocity greatly. That is a key.

I am proud that both Allison and Reale were Detroit Based and that the University of Michigan "Engine" School has been involved in both of their educations.

It is time to recognize that the ubiquitous 3 bladed designs are perfect examples of very poor engineering design and it is disgusting that the politicians have latched on to that as the savior of humanity.

It should be recognized that the spinnaker and the mainsail operate on two completely different principles.

Anthony must receive proper and substantial backing at this stage of his life. Allison knew that stainless steel was essential and one wonders if the model had simply been used as armature for the creation of a negative mold for the fabrication of a fiberglass shell would have saved some grief.

Bill Dickens

Island Architect
7th February, 2011 @ 06:15 am PST

He's rediscovered the discharge accelerator or "fall increaser", developed before 1910, and recreated the Moody Ejector turbine. See

http://www.frenchriverland.com/fall_increaser_moody_ejector_turbine.htm

More power is generated from the water that actually passes through the runner, but considerably more water is used altogether. Generally only applied in cases where there is occasionally excess water due to environmental fluctuations.

Kelly Williams
7th February, 2011 @ 06:51 am PST

This looks like the aquatic version of a windmill previously mentioned on gizmag.

http://www.gizmag.com/flodesign-high-efficiency-wind-turbine-based-on-jet-engine-technology/10556/

The shape is different but they use the same concept of manipulating flow around the turbine to increase speed through the turbine.

Davey
7th February, 2011 @ 11:08 am PST

Good research. One thing caught my attention in the written description that I'll point out in case it helps understand it better assuming something in the calculations didn't quite pan out.

Classical airfoil theory attributes lift predominantly to the Bernoulli Effect where the air going over the top of a wing has a longer path and so must accelerate to meet up with the air it left at the leading edge. The faster moving air creates a low pressure zone and the pressure differential gives the lift. This has been shown to be incorrect. The air that goes under the wing has no "appointment" with the air going over the top to meet at the trailing edge and in fact it doesn't. The lift is caused by the angle of attack and a thing called the "Coanda Effect" where the air molecules at the wing interface tend to stick to the wing and the air molecules tend to stick to each other. The acceleration of the air as it is forced to curve creates a simple F=MA opposing force and that is the predominant force. The article can be found here.

http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html

The new theory is supported by the fact that a wing will work perfectly well upside down as long as it has a suitable angle of attack.

Not trying to be smart but maybe this will be useful to you. Cheers.

warren52nz
7th February, 2011 @ 12:23 pm PST

Oh, for crying out loud. Stop mentioning Allison. If his design was so much more efficient, why isn't it being used today in any wind turbine of any size, from small units generating a few hundred watts up through utility scale megawatt units? His 1970s-era patents have long since expired. Anybody can use the designs without paying royalties. The fact that nobody is doing so should tell you something, namely that his claims of increased efficiency were overstated.

Gadgeteer
7th February, 2011 @ 04:47 pm PST

The secret is in the blades. They're all wrong. Let me put it this way: "Things that go 'Bump in the night' " work 24/7 (a phrase I hate) where it's night 24/7. N'est ce pas?

Myron J. Poltroonian
7th February, 2011 @ 10:25 pm PST

Good luck with that patent - but I'm pretty sure he's going to find out that since he's a student - his ideas belong to his instution - not himself...

@warren52nz - mate - just because something doesn't make it in the marketplace, doesn't mean it's not better. Take yourself for example - you're using Microsoft Windows, a QWERTY keyboard, and fossil-fuel provided electricity right? Case in point.

christopher
8th February, 2011 @ 12:03 am PST

"40% more?" - more than what? The blades in this thing only make up only about 20% of the surface area of the unit - so does "40% more" mean that it's really 62% *less* efficient than an equivalently sized conventional design?

Sure - *if* you've got unlimited fluid flow, it doesn't matter (unless you want to use the "better-performing" conventional design) - but since they didn't measure energy loss or compare it with anything else - the testing looks like a waste of time. The didn't even try the most obvious thing - run the blades minus the cowling. (or maybe they did, but didn't like the results?)

christopher
8th February, 2011 @ 12:27 am PST

Yes, undoubtedly he is doing great work pointing out these design features, but doesn't that lateral-view "cutaway" diagram look remarkably similar to the bypass-fan jet engine that has been in service on aircraft for decades? Did all the experts on fluid-dynamics around the world never think of applying these principles to water-flow?

professore
8th February, 2011 @ 03:35 am PST

It's probably important here to define how we are measuring this improved efficiency; ie, more efficient than turbine blades of the particular diameter used? Or is it more efficient than a ducted area equivalent to the 'total intake area".

We may be talking about the turbine blade diameter, and possibly the case that a slightly larger turbine in a single duct that a size would also be 40% more efficient.

Bottom line is, sounds great, I'd love to see more clearly defined data!

Marke
8th February, 2011 @ 08:13 am PST

What a beautiful video! Thank you so much for taking the time and effort into making it available. One can learn so much from it about the process of testing and "making it happen" which isn't trivial at all.

Andrew Wigin
8th February, 2011 @ 03:24 pm PST

I like this a lot. Good breakthrough. There is one problem with the video, and it is the music. Don't get me wrong, I love music. But I watched this to learn of the technology, and the music served up way too much distraction. I had to stop several times and roll the video back to hear the dialogue. Otherwise, this is a great idea that should have been built with fiberglass..

csbrudy
9th February, 2011 @ 05:04 am PST

Myron is correct... the secret is in the blades as well as the bypass.

The lemmings amongst us believe in the so called Bernoulli effect

Davey is correct... multiple blades are necessary.

The "wing" approach is the reason for the low efficiencies of turbines loved by the lemmings and the politicians, but certainly not for the Williams turbines used in the cruise missiles.

Get a grip on it "Gadgeteer". Allison did not have a clue as to how to promote his work, he simply was a very excellent engineer. You never heard about it until I spoke.

I just recieved a letter from a Canadian Friend, old enough to have wisdom, and he pointed out that a huge bank of fans along Lake Erie are shut down due to Ice on the Wings. Duuh.

Now there remains the fact that nowhere has anybody set up a non confined flow wind tunnel and no one has tested for verification and comparison Allison's magnificent work along with the lemming approach.

Yes, there is a certification effort underfoot but that does not include the all important concept in engineering... % efficiency.

Think about it... does the spinnaker produce more power than the mainsail?

They operate on two distinctly different principles.

If you cannot grasp that Sam Williams will not hire you.

bill

Island Architect
9th February, 2011 @ 06:44 am PST

The spinnaker doesn't generate more power than the mainsail, per square foot of sail.

The spinnaker allows down wind running maximising the aero drag of the sail, to overcome the hydro drag of an inefficient hull in the water (displacement yachts belong in the days of the clipper ships at best). Still using a mainsail and jib (2 element sing) a more efficient craft will perform better on a broad reach, than with a spinnaker running free. The straight line speed will be significantly greater, and the actual speed can be much more.

Point being moot.. aerodynamic lift and drag devices have their places in the world of power turbines.

Looking at this design, it appears that it would best be suited for the design of a pump, rather than a power turbine.

The bypass flow may be increasing the flow through the turbine via an induced pressure differential.. (at the discharge nozzle), but the converging intake diffuser, is likely not to add to the efficiency at all, if there is a pressure build-up before the turbine, the water which should be flowing through the centre of the duct, may just flow around it.... as the flow is not constrained to go through the ducting.

Research at QUT has indicated that the action of a diverging duct, downstream of the turbine acts to 'suck' a greater volume through the turbine, than a converging duct upstream...

(that is in the absence of using circulation control.).

MD
23rd November, 2011 @ 06:24 pm PST
Post a Comment

Login with your gizmag account:

Or Login with Facebook:


Related Articles
Looking for something? Search our 27,793 articles