The Sky Serpent: Twenty-Five Turbines in One

29 Responses to “The Sky Serpent: Twenty-Five Turbines in One”

1. Uncle B Posted: May 14th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

   1 Every now and then, something that works well is reverse engineered and the textbooks get rewritten. That’s when man makes his biggest advances! Reply to this comment.

2. Wayne Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 12:16 am

   2 That’s pretty darn cool! It’s always nice to hear about people that don’t have the full education of others, but still do better. Hope to see it in the deserts of California soon! Reply to this comment.

3. bill Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

   3 This is going to kill a lot of birds. Part of the reason for making huge turbines is so that the speed of the rotor won’t be as fast, so that birds won’t get hit by them. Reply to this comment.

4. VBDon Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

   4 That large tower is wasted space. He should put hundreds of turbines in the walls of the tower to capture more wind power. Reply to this comment.

5. Jamison Pezdek Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

   5 His invention does not have 25 seperate turbines and the article states. This invention uses the concept that Having many rotors each putting a small ammount of torque together can power a large single turbine, that requires a large torque to turn. I will give him some credit for finding a way to prevent the turbulance from prop to prop limited, but It really does not defy convention that much. The larger wind power generators have the large rotors to allow slow winds as a energy generating force. Also the first peice of concept art seems to be a very ineffective way to haness any form of wind power. Reply to this comment.

6. Drew Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

   6 Excellent example of something I wrote about yesterday ( http://sustainAgility.com/why-are-we-ignoring-moore-s-law/ ). If we can get the rewards right for folks like Doug Selsam as the entrepreneur as well as the purchasers of the technology we will find ourselves surrounded by solutions. Reply to this comment.

7. Bill Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

   7 I agree with the Bill’s statement above… This is like a giant blending machine for California condors, spotted owls etc. This design is not very eco friendly. The short term gains in energy production most likely do not offset the environmental risk inherent in this design. The string design is a cool concept though. Reply to this comment.

8. eatingorange Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

   8 It’s nice to know that there are people out there thinking about this stuff but this just seems really impractical for a large scale deployment. Small rotors have to turn very fast and generate very little torque. Additional rotors on the same drive shaft will add torque but they still turn very fast and will kill birds like crazy. It’s a cool concept but I don’t think anyone would ever deploy this thing. I’ve seen other designs that feature large, slow-moving helical collectors that seem much more promising. Reply to this comment.

9. Toby Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

   9 @Bill: the threat posed to birds by many small turbines, especially in a configuration like the first image above shows, doesn’t appear to be greater than that of a single large one. And I somehow suspect that climate change is going to be harder on birds than wind power, in whatever configuration. Reply to this comment.

10. robo Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

    10 I don’t understand how this is supposed to be better…he has lower windswept area, and makes up for it with more turbines…needs higher windspeeds to get the same power, which is statistically less likely… if he had a rotor with the same diameter as the length of his line he’d be able to get more power. Granted there will be material & manufacturing price etc, but that’s really an optimization thing… I can’t really think of when this would be an advantage. are the pictures just poor representations of his design? cause they make the idea look pretty terrible. Reply to this comment.

11. MD Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    11 Short on detail. I’m not sure what that first picture is supposed to be - is it real or a “concept art” photoshop? Is the rope/axle thing anchored at the other end? Or does it flap in the breeze? What keeps it pointed to the wind direction? It looks like you need a flexible driveshaft, which means pretty short life for that part? If the goal is cheap easy construction, why not use a vertical drum turbine? That also lets you pack them together densely, and use guy wires to anchor the top of the vertical axis post for stability so the axle does not have to b as strong. Reply to this comment.

12. P.A.H. Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    12 An attractive and interesting design, but which sadly doesn’t meet contemporary design requirements. The key one here includes not chopping up Nature’s birds and bats which we want to preserve in order keep down the number of bugs that can effect humans. Looks like a bird and bat killing Cuisinart to me. Sorry, it’s nothing more than bit of art. Oh wait, he could create a smaller one to chop up the bugs too! It would be easier just to use the blades which don’t chop up the part of nature which is important not only for a large industry, but for something as important as our food supply. Reply to this comment.

13. Jesse Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 11:04 pm

    13 It amazes me how cynical people can be when something new is put in front of them. Just accept that it’s a slightly different take on things, which is always good. Part of the problem with science is the constant cock measuring that goes on with scientists themselves. With the energy wasted trying to find flaws in his design, you could have tried coming up with something productive. Reply to this comment.

14. Doug Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    14 So why don’t you all think outside the box a little more. Why not place balanced mesh cones around the blades, kind of like a pasta strainer, with the blades tucked inside. That way they deflect the birds. Reply to this comment.

15. Colab Posted: May 15th, 2008 at 11:41 pm

    15 Interesting… yet I like this one to this floating turbine concept: http://www.magenn.com Reply to this comment.

16. Michael Glatz Posted: May 16th, 2008 at 1:33 am

    16 Is is true that Leonardo DaVinci did not have a Degree from Harvard or Yale either? Oh my gosh you mean we have to rethink his contributions to the world based on that? Reply to this comment.

17. DOQSWP Posted: May 16th, 2008 at 1:35 am

    17 Novelties aside, there is also quite serious and innovative small wind energy development happening. Here’s a link to the world’s #1 company by sales $’s in micro-wind. Yes, you could put this in your backyard today. Reply to this comment.

18. whiskeytango22 Posted: May 16th, 2008 at 2:36 am

    18 the main issue that no one has brought up is the fact that there will be to much weight for the wind to change the direction of the windmill. if this is placed in a flat area with no trees then maybe, but in the city or anywhere else this is worthless Reply to this comment.

19. Parris ja Young Posted: May 16th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    19 Where is the link that DOQSWP (dog-swap?) mentions? I would love to see practical wind generating devices for single family homes in areas without much wind. I can live with less power. Reply to this comment.

20. Bill Mosby Posted: May 16th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    20 Geez, and I wasted all that time getting an engineering degree. What was I thinking? Reply to this comment.

21. Chuck Posted: May 17th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    21 Every now and then, something that works well is reverse engineered and the textbooks get rewritten. That’s when man makes his biggest advances! Couldn’t agree more Uncle B, this is exactly what I think of this technology that they talk about at hhtp://www.SaveGasSaveEarth.com also. But there’s obviously more to this. Reply to this comment.

22. Rich Posted: May 18th, 2008 at 1:32 am

    22 he could stand them, individually, on top of buildings- many of them on roofs could do the job. Reply to this comment.

23. Leon Posted: May 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    23 What happens when the wind isn’t constant? Will the rotors hit the ground (still spinning) every time the wind drops? Reply to this comment.

24. Earthority.com Posted: May 21st, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    24 Very unique prototype indeed. But also check out our new micro wind turbine called the Motorwind at: Earthority.com. Each is only 20″ in diameter. Thanks. Reply to this comment.

25. confused Posted: May 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    25 What kind of bird flies into a stationary fan? My guess is one that won’t be around long anyway. Reply to this comment.

26. Andrew Posted: Jun 3rd, 2008 at 3:21 am

    26 Some were wondering what would stop the whole thing from falling to the ground when the wind dies down….There’s an article on this device in Popular Science (it may be on their website, i haven’t checked yet) where it is mentioned that there is a balloon at the end of the drive shaft. I’d guess that would also cause the blades to be facing the right way, ie into the wind, right? For more info, try the Popular Science website….i’m just an interested newbie…Andrew Reply to this comment.

27. Damon Posted: Jun 13th, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    27 I think this is a very smart way to do business. By the sound of blogs it proves that humans dont like change (let alone by someone with out a degree). This is something that will save a lot of money and reduce the impact on the environment. Something doesn’t have to be enormous to capture wind, because that argument doesn’t hold true for the windmills in west Texas. Anyone with a slight education (elementary school) knows it is windy as hell in the midwest, and yet the the same windmill technology is used as in California!!! Reply to this comment.

28. Michael Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 5:18 am

    28 Here’s a tip, why don’t you actually ‘read’ the articles before responding? The lower images, as described, are concept art. Short on detail. I’m not sure what that first picture is supposed to be - is it real or a “concept art” photoshop? Reply to this comment.

29. CPphysics Posted: Jul 6th, 2008 at 1:48 am

    29 From what I can tell, the above criticism has nothing to do with the inventor lacking an advanced degree from MIT. One of the most important things taught to us suckers with science degrees is to not blindly accept claims that something is a revolutionary solution to a long standing problem. Peer review is crucial for pointing out potential design flaws so they may be properly addressed. While this process might seem harsh to those not familiar with it, in the end it will lead to the best overall results. I think this is a very smart way to do business. By the sound of blogs it proves that humans dont like change (let alone by someone with out a degree). This is something that will save a lot of money and reduce the impact on the environment. Something doesn’t have to be enormous to capture wind, because that argument doesn’t hold true for the windmills in west Texas. Anyone with a slight education (elementary school) knows it is windy as hell in the midwest, and yet the the same windmill technology is used as in California!!! Reply to this comment.