Yeah it seems that the one thing Dave S. and I can agree on is it is OK (and somewhat fun) to disagree.
Let's try in the most gentleman-ly and suitable-for-framing way to get the following across:
I will now address Dave S.'s torque-tube criticism of Superturbine(R):
Please show in some logical mathematical or physical way how
Superturbine's driveshafts in all their embodiments including
open-weave cylinders comprising darrieus blades are inadequate to the
I don't feel it is up to me to answer critiques that are not developed to the point that there is anything to answer.
So far I have shown a machine that works and Dave S. seems to be saying that "the bumblebee can't fly".
That is all I see. When my driveshafts start failing, Dave S. can make
that argument, but so far there is no reason shown to doubt the
adequacy of the "torque tube" approach.
As I explain in my patents, smaller rotors spin faster and weigh less,
eliminating the gearbox. Next, a driveshaft can be lighter in direct
proportion to the RPM, since faster RPM carries more power at less
torque. It seems that the advantages of Superturbine technology are not
being appreciated for what they are in some cases. So far of all the
engineering challenges we face, and there are a lot, the ability to
carry torque is simply not among them.
Anyway I will try to be more civil in tone since some have asked for that.
However I will say that I don't have too much more time for this since
as I point out, this activity is many years old for me - we have dealt
with the unwashed masses promoting high-solidity, slowly-turning or
upwind-downwind oscillating machines for years.
If they really believe they have a superior solution, they should
explain mathematically exactly how it is superior, or be able to
demonstrate it. Otherwise it is all just empty talk. Can we spend all
day responding to empty talk that really makes no sense when fully
analyzed? Can we make progress with real machines if we spend all our
time discussing hypothetical machines that may or more likely, may not
be above what Wil. E. Coyote comes up with in the cartoons?
Most of these schemes have a lot more in common with The Bugs Bunny
Roadrunner Hour than they are aware or would ever want to admit: The
extraction of a single abstract observation, extrapolation from that
observation, in disregard for all other pertinent facts.
For example, many cite "the air leaking through" regular blades of a
regular, modern, low-solidity rotor. Sure this would be true if it
weren't spinning, if it were still. This would be true if the airfoils
had not evolved for 1000 years to be able to extract large amounts of
lift from a small profile. This would be true of the blades weren't
spinning way faster than the wind itself, creating their own operating
environment and determining the angle of attack almost independent of
the wind itself. But, since these surrounding circumstances do not
exist, all these designs that address this phantom problem are
incorrect at best and outright lies and investor or customer ripoffs at
And yet I have heard highly-degreed "scientists" talk about today's
wind turbine in exactly these terms on national press: talking about
how they could be improved if only the designers had the wisdom of the
ignorant yet highly-credentialed pundit. If only the people who know
how to make power, and do it for a living, would listen to the people
who can't make any power at all! It's all just Monday-Morning
And in the case of innovators who could be steered straight to avoid
wasting their time, wasting others' time, and to avoid giving a bum
steer to the populace in general, it is tempting to think that the
learned could ever convince the self-imposed ignorance of someone who
refuses to listen to the voice of experience and insists on making all
the beginner mistakes that revisit 3000 years of turbine evolution on a
microcosm scale, insisting on learning every tough lesson themselves
instead of just taking in the facts that have already been accumulated
in the art.
At the same time, we won't come up with anything new if we refuse to discuss new ideas that may at first seem improbable.
Hence, the open forum. Enjoy it while it is still allowed.
Dave Culp, I would recommend for you that your technology is achievable NOW and what are you waiting for?
Is there no model of boat that could have your product developed for it
NOW rather than at some future date that will never really get here but
always slowly move forward into the future?
Is that what innovation is about? Coming up with "almost" solutions,
but always with some reason why it can't quite be done now?
Airbourne turbines that "would work" if only we could get permits and
fly them at 30,000 feet without any problems or hassles? Why not
develop low-power or low-height versions that actually work at a lower
height, even if only on a windy day? Would that not be better than just
Note though that a Superturbine(R) powering your underwater propeller
might be something to look at for powering a boat by wind: see U.S.
Anyway that is why I sell a SuperTwin(TM) now: It was something I could
build in my garage, on a low budget, without having to try and convince
anyone by blogging it to death - just a product that works. It is hard
to argue with something that works although (ahem) certain people will
always try :)
Also: Let's not assume that a magazine like "Nature" is somehow
superior to us. Mistaking the mantle of authority for factual source is
not the way to innovate. For example, what good is all the civility in
such a magazine if it spends years promoting global warming as the
world slowly freezes? If they push the Al Gore's "severe
hurricane"-type proclamations while hurricanes become the mildest in
recorded history? How about Scientific American calling the Wright Bros
a fraud? Who are the real scientists after all? The real scientists are
the ones who can make new things that work. Most degreed imposters are
merely the government-funded mop-up crew, who begrudgingly come up with
new formulas to describe what the tinkeres and backyard mechanics get
to work, after it is already powering their computers. Do you assume
that "science" gave us the wind turbines we use today? No, we used
airfoils for 900 years during which time wind turbines were the main
industrial power source for Europe before there was a "theory of lift"
developed by "scientists".
I wish everyone an exceptionally beautiful day! And let's remember, The
Royal Society declared for years that stones could not fall from the
sky as the ignorant villagers brought meteorites they had found for
examination and all the Muslims traveled to Mecca to touch the black
stone that fell from the sky and Abraham found. (yup that's why they go
there, to worship a stone that fell from the sky) - in fact it would
have been natural to assume that chucks of Nickel-steel falling from
the sky were gift from the Gods since steel was a better material for
so many uses. Would the iron age have even happened yet, without these
meteorites that official "Science" was in denial of for so many years?
P.S.: Here is what you're dealing with: "Doug may not make super classy AWE posts, but many of mine have been."
OK, sure. Dude, nice posts... where's your machine & data?
---- dave santos <email@example.com