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.
He\'s rediscovered the discharge accelerator or \"fall increaser\", developed before 1910, and recreated the Moody Ejector turbine. See
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.
This looks like the aquatic version of a windmill previously mentioned on gizmag.
The shape is different but they use the same concept of manipulating flow around the turbine to increase speed through the turbine.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
\"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?)
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?
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!
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.
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..
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.
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.).