It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ultra-Efficient Bladeless Wind Turbine Inspired by Nikolai Tesla

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Has anyone encountered this piece of easy accessible energy device yet ?


SolarAero recently unveiled a new bladeless wind turbine that offers several advantages over current wind turbines — it emits hardly any noise in operation, has few moving parts, and since it doesn’t use spinning blades it’s much less of a hazard to bats and birds.

According to the company, this turbine should cost around $1.50 per watt of rated output, and have a lifetime operating cost of about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour — comparable to, or even better than, current retail electrical rates in many parts of the country. This would make the SolarAero turbine about 2/3 the price of a comparable bladed unit, and because of the significantly lower operating costs, lifetime maintenance could be just 1/4 the cost. At this point the project is still under development, and no manufacturer has been lined up as of yet.



The Tesla Turbine.
Tesla's original idea.


Again this looks like an easy way to get cheap energy I can't help noticing these ideas and developments are abundantly offered. Is it just me or has ther been a course change lately ?

Not that I mind


I haven't seen this been posted yet so here you go.

This is one where I would say definitely plausible.

Edit.
Sorry I forgot to ad the link.
Here you go ! Ultra-Efficient Bladeless Wind Turbine Inspired by Nikolai Tesla

[edit on 5/7/2010 by Sinter Klaas]




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 

Explanation: S&F!

Personal Disclosure: This info helps me greatly and I wonder if its efficient properties can be applied to watermills ect?

P.S.
Tesla!



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


If we can create a steady ongoing flow of water. Does this not make it a perpetual motion energy machine ?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 

Explanation: Discussing perpetual motion devices without first determining whether the environment is themally open or closed is problematic and leads to all kinds of "heated" debates [no pun intended..but I will still take credit for it
]!

Personal Disclosure: Since the device works on a principle of motion induced by friction from a flowing fluid and there is a solar wind in space, could this device be altered to become a solar wind space dynamo???


If it could then satellites ect could be powered by such a device instead of requiring solar panels [limited lifetime and very expensive] and or radioactive batteries!



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


I guess in theory it should work on solar wind. They will have to be pretty big I think but when they're on a role they could go for a long time.

I won't start a debate about something I don't know that much about

It was a question


But... In space you can make everything go round and round. Whats the problem with lining up a couple of magnets that would keep the center of lets say a satellite from turning and the satellite around it's center. Shouldn't you create an electrical current. ?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Very cool I have some plans for the telsa device but have not got around to trying to build it.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Very cool I have some plans for the telsa device but have not got around to trying to build it.


You mean this device ?
Or maybe another ?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Certainly a step forward in the right direction, but it's hardly world beating. 12 cents per kilowatt hour is actually the approximate price of conventional wind turbines, which is more expensive than new coal, new natural gas, and new Nuclear.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Certainly a step forward in the right direction, but it's hardly world beating. 12 cents per kilowatt hour is actually the approximate price of conventional wind turbines, which is more expensive than new coal, new natural gas, and new Nuclear.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by C0bzz]


yes, but more efficient, 'healthier' and more of a long-term solution,
its great minds thinking AHEAD that empower humanity



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmmonSeth

Originally posted by C0bzz
Certainly a step forward in the right direction, but it's hardly world beating. 12 cents per kilowatt hour is actually the approximate price of conventional wind turbines, which is more expensive than new coal, new natural gas, and new Nuclear.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by C0bzz]


yes, but more efficient, 'healthier' and more of a long-term solution,
its great minds thinking AHEAD that empower humanity


Until they can solve the intermittency problem and reduce the price, then it will be limited in usefulness, just like current wind is. One of the reasons we live in relative luxury today is from an abundance of cheap energy. If we want to replace fossil fuels then we are going to need something that has economics close to fossil fuels, or else coal will remain KING.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


I think you are right and this thing isn't really that cheap.

I think we have come to a point in time where we should accept any change in ebergy source as possible. I rather prefer a cheap way but are the costs really that much of a problem ?

Maybe if it is expensive people will stop wasting so much of it. If that happens less energy will be required.
A little while ago here in the Netherlands there was a commercial.
The message was this :
The energy needed to make an oasis out of the Sahara was about the same as the energy used ( the Netherlands) for each light burning for nothing and keeping electronics on standby mode.

PS.
I don't now if they added the higher cost of fresh water from the seas.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
The energy we use is almost all solar at it's root. Hydroelectic is solar driven, heat from the sun evaporates water, rain falls, rivers run... Sunlight provides the power behind photosysnthisis, plants grow, die, decay, become layered, turn into coal and or oil. Wind is a solar heat driven process.
I like Tesla. My 6th grade science fair project was a 250 KV Tesla coil. The Tesla turbine makes sense for wind power extraction. Just need to refine the method of capturing a large cross sectional area of the flow and getting it to the edge of the trubine disks.

Have a thoughtful day




top topics



 
7

log in

join