Richard,
You are correct because if the air is calm (no wind) after moving through the first set of blades, then there is no more energy to be harvested. This forum got heated when I mentioned that there may be a way to drastically increase the mechanical efficiency by using a Tesla turbine with counter-rotating sets of plates rather than using turbine blades at all. The new Strait turbine doesn’t seem to have any moving parts and that would be a significant improvement for sure!

Jim, I don’t know if you had time to check it out or not about the air behind the wind turbine. I said that I believed that I had read about it being fairly calm, I am not certain of that.

Richard,
I’m glad you showed up and clarified the situation! Now, back to the counter-rotating turbine blades. The best possible situation which can occur is that the air exitting the last turbine stage is still (not moving), because that means the maximum amount of energy available in the wind or moving air has been harvested. There is sometimes a tendency to think there is some magical way to convert an amount of energy that’s greater than what enters the system. There isn’t! The best one can do is to have a supposedly perfect conversion apparatus that converts all the available energy into more useful forms, which would entail a 100% efficient conversion device that can’t exist due to frictional and other losses as well as the energy needed to reset the system’s cycle to its starting point. In short, adding a set of counter-rotating blades would only split the energy available from the incoming wind between two central shafts moving in opposite directions. Then you would have to capture and use the energy from two shafts instead of one. And again, if the downstream blades move independently, then there is the possibility of varying the downstream blade characteristics to possibly improve the mechanical conversion efficiency in order to get more useful work out. But adding extra mechanical contrivances to effect an improvement in efficiency will most likely offset any real gains. Of course, I may be wrong so let me know! I can take it or at least I think so! But you are correct, Richard, in your assumption about no improvement in overall conversion efficiency when using counter-rotating blades as far as I can see anyway.

Frank,
Kevin and I were having a discussion and he was fully capable of defending himself if he felt the need, which he did (see the “?”). Richard, whether joking or not, raised a valid concern that I felt needed to be addressed by the forum administrator and my request was ignored, so I was fending for myself. Kevin tried to point out the fact that I may have misinterpreted what Richard said (since Richard wouldn’t do it himself!), but the way Kevin entered into the conversation was similar to what I felt was currently happening in the other forum between Ralf and Julie. Randy retaliated to defend Kevin and then I wrote, “I’m not going to enter into a name-calling contest with you (uh, uhhhhh!), but don’t you have anything constructive and fun to add regarding counter-rotating turbine blades so we can calmly and professionally agree to disagree? Whether you think so or not, I admit when I’m wrong both technically and otherwise. However, I only read what I read, and I try not to spend too much time trying to decipher what someone else said. Besides, it should be up to the person who says something controversial and ambiguous to clarify.” There was no problem at that point, or so I thought. I thought the forum was getting back on track and then you jumped into the pool with both feet and let me have it with a good one-two punch! Not only did you let me have it for what I had just said, but you decided to be the saving knight and tell everyone who would listen how bad you think I am as a person in general! That’s where it really became unfair. Whether you think so or not, what you did by attempting to ruin my reputation and discredit me the way you did is considered internet slander (actually ‘libel’ since it’s written). But now that you responded and gave me a chance to defend myself, I guess it’s just another case of agreeing to disagree. I will say this: if someone jumps into the middle of a heated ongoing discussion between another member and me, and then tries to take one side or the other when they have no business doing so, then you can bet I will defend myself accordingly! By the way, Frank, I think you’re a brilliant and creative individual who can be as nice or as mean as the situation deems necessary. If we can leave it at that, then fine with me!

Kevin’s right, I was writting this starting at Jim’s name, when I read a little and thought I better go back and fill in the rest of what had been written. Good thing I did, I really had no intention of creating any bad feelings. But I have said and written things in the past that I feel will cause people to think. I am not a greedy person and hate when I see injustice anywhere. So the following written here is what I started with .— Jim, I was just trying to make a point in my own sick sense of humor. That is, it could be as simple as an idea being kicked around to the point that someone does figure out how to accomplish whatever is being discussed. If the input from others contributed to the final solution, I would hope that all contributors would share with any possible profits. If the ideas only stimulated a completely different solution to a problem, then I would think that the problem solver would be on his own. I have discussed harnessing tidal power over 30 years ago,before I ever heard anyone talk about it. I was hand making fiber optic gun sights before any were on the market. Now they are everywhere. And although I did see a patent attorney, he said, just start making them, any slight changes are all that is needed for someone else to also make them. But it takes money to make money, and I was the bread winner in my family and could not afford anything. Nothing has changed money wise. I’ve had a number of ideas before Edison Nation. I’m really hoping that EN is the answer to not only my desire but other people’s desire to see our ideas come to fruition. At least I’m hoping that not only EN but we all respect each other and that knowone back stabs anybody else. I hope that we could all work together. Back to the main subject, I believe that I had read years ago that the air entering a wind mill essentually changes the wind energy into machanical energy, and that the air behind the windmill is therefore fairly calm. If that is true, a second set of blades behind the first would be of no value. As the wind would not be fast enough to be useful. I don’t know if this is true.

Jim; do you happen to remember writing this to Kevin, who was just interjecting a bit of humor to the discussion:
“…even though it’s obvious you are deliberately trying to get people wound up for nothing! And in my opinion, that’s what you seem to do best whenever and wherever you peek your face out of the grass.”

What is it about you that makes you feel saying something like this is acceptable behavior, and, deny doing anything wrong when you’re called on it, plus, attempt to intimidate the one who called you out by threatning legal action?

There’s only about three people on these forums that do exactly what you are doing now. Look at the history. I tried very hard to stay on topic here, but you and one other individual insist on causing dissent. I tried to get the forum administrators to settle an overwhelming question about how much information can be divulged while publicly presenting sound technical discussion without introducing a chance of patent protection denial later on. No answer from them. So who gave you control of the steering wheel? What bothers me the most about people like you, Frank, is you put words into my mouth that I never say. It’s your own biases that seep through, and what do you do after that except to call me names and then try to get everyone to agree with your slander and childish accusations! It’s you who have crossed the border now, and I will certainly check to see if legal action against you is warranted. Notice, Frank, there’s no name-calling or slandering going on here except what you have brought into the discussion. Now, if someone wants to add something more to my counter-rotating turbine blade discussion, I hope Frank will allow it because I know our Constitution very well does!

This is for you, Jim…

The targets of your arrogant, condescending remarks have successfully defused the arguements in order to maintain an adult and professional atmosphere, but before you know it, you’re right back into it with someone else!

TO THE MODS/ADMIN: If this post gets me banned, then so be it, but papajim is destroying the comradery that has made the EN forums special and causing valuable members to be afraid to post, or abandon the family!

Where’s the Tylenol!!

Posted again to hopefully get this forum back on track, and if not, I’m outta here too:
The real question is how much energy is available in a moving stream of air or water that can be converted to another useful form, such as electricity. A system that may shed some light on the matter of how efficient a turbine with counter-rotating bladess can be, would be a steam cycle that utilizes both a high-pressure turbine and a low-pressure turbine connected in series and placed in the same flow of steam in order to get maximum energy output with the same quantity of moving steam. Using this case as an example, if the second set of blades were to spin independently of the first set as they most certainly do, then more energy may be derived from the steam flow if certain characteristics of the second blade-set were altered, such as total turbine blade-mass, number of blades, and total blade-surface area. Maybe I’m missing something, but please explain to me how a counter-rotating second set of blades does anything except lower the conversion efficiency since more mass is added to the system that has to be moved around by the same fluid flow (steam, air, or water) without giving any beneficial gains? Stationary blades do admittedly re-direct and change the direction of the moving fluid so it impinges on subsequent downstream blades in turbines, but no energy is required to hold the stationary blades in place.

Randy,
I’m not going to enter into a name-calling contest with you (uh, uhhhhh!), but don’t you have anything constructive and fun to add regarding counter-rotating turbine blades so we can calmly and professionally agree to disagree? Whether you think so or not, I admit when I’m wrong both technically and otherwise. However, I only read what I read, and I try not to spend too much time trying to decipher what someone else said. Besides, it should be up to the person who says something controversial and ambiguous to clarify.

Jim… I don’t think da Biskit said anything to justify your “scolding”. In fact, you seem to speak to people with a not-so-veiled contempt.

Maybe you’re just an angry beaver?

I dunno…

Over-n-out

?

Kevin,
Nobody has said we couldn’t outwardly share ideas on this forum, so how about if we keep it on track with the topic at hand, which is counter-rotating turbine blades? That’s what I intend to do anyway, even though it’s obvious you are deliberately trying to get people wound up for nothing! And in my opinion, that’s what you seem to do best whenever and wherever you peek your face out of the grass. So please stay on the topic or be silent and respectful to others who have legitimate and meaningful input. Thanks.

Hey PapaJim:)

As another contributor (like Richard) I too have a somewhat twisted, dry sense of humor. I also have noticed that Richard posts late in the day. I’m thinking that you may have misinterpreted his humor. (I could very well be wrong.) But I also have seen little snowballs turn into glaciers in a few hours around here. I’m thinking …we all sit around and wait in ambush…calmly, and fully armed. We wait for Richard to show his smug smile, and if he really is stealing ideas and then blatantly thanking us, then we…well we…we…Nah. Let’s just see what he says. It’s not worth getting a lot of people wound up fer nuttin.

The real question is how much energy is available in a moving stream of air or water that can be converted to another useful form, such as electricity. A system that may shed some light on the matter of how efficient a turbine with counter-rotating bladess can be, would be a steam cycle that utilizes both a high-pressure turbine and a low-pressure turbine connected in series and placed in the same flow of steam in order to get maximum energy output with the same quantity of moving steam. Using this case as an example, if the second set of blades were to spin independently of the first set as they most certainly do, then more energy may be derived from the steam flow if certain characteristics of the second blade-set were altered, such as total turbine blade-mass, number of blades, and total blade-surface area. Maybe I’m missing something, but please explain to me how a counter-rotating second set of blades does anything except lower the conversion efficiency since more mass is added to the system that has to be moved around by the same fluid flow (steam, air, or water) without giving any beneficial gains? Stationary blades do admittedly re-direct and change the direction of the moving fluid so it impinges on subsequent downstream blades in turbines, but no energy is required to hold the stationary blades in place.

Hey Randy,
Good to hear from you again. Don’t get me wrong, I really liked adding to this forum because I love technical discussions. You may also have a good point about the possibility of disclosing something here that may prevent or adversely affect IP protection later on. I just don’t know. That’s why I believe the forum administrator needs to advise us as to how much we should openly discuss ideas. It’s also my belief though, that any type of censorship as applied to open and free-thought discussions can lead to no good end. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but Richard is a prime example of how open idea discussions can nurture thinking. He admits that he came up with his invention/idea by reading what others had to say here, and then he requests for us to essentially shut up now so he can protect the idea we gave him! And then he has the audacity to slap our faces with: “…Thanks guys.”

Hi PapaJim,

I don’t think censorship is the way to go… I believe it’s just a matter of a polite request (which I’m no longer requesting because the discussion never really touched on my idea… I was just paranoid that it may be getting close).

In my case I never abandoned my concept and every week make some kind of progress.

Good Luck!

Randy E

Hey all,
We’re waiting for the forum administrator’s input on whether or not it’s okay to openly discuss ideas on these forums. You may have already unknowngly divulged ideas that Richard or Randy came up with several years ago and never did anything with!

Hey Adam,
There is a saw, I forget what its called, but it has two blades side by side but they rotate in opposite directions. It cuts through different types of materials without the risk of kickback.
I think they carry it at Sears, you should look at that design. Good luck.

I don’t know; if counter-rotation worked (enough) for wind turbines, then wouldn’t they have counter-rotating screws on ships?

Richard wrote, “Because while reading all of these ideas, I figured out how to accomplish this with a different variation. I’m not saying how though, thanks guys.” Was openly sharing ideas on this forum only okay to the point where it benefitted Richard and then no more? Geesh!

Before this discussion gets off again in a bad direction, some input from the forum administrators would certainly be nice. Is this a valid case for censorship, or can ideas be freely and openly exchanged here without adverse repercussions happening in the future?

I kind of agree with Randy on about not openly discussing this. Because while reading all of these ideas, I figured out how to accomplish this with a different variation. I’m not saying how though, thanks guys.

Now here is a turbine innovation… 40% increase in efficiency!

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/15/strait-power...

I had an idea in the past about counter rotating blades but had not figured out how, now thanks to you all i got to thinking and figured a way to do it which would increase the blade area and thus the output.

Hi Raif,
Increasing the amount of blade surface area as you proposed by using more blades or else by using multiple blade-stages (each possibly counter-rotating) won’t necessarily increase the amount of energy captured from the wind passing through the turbine. There’s a physical law that limits the process and it accounts for the resistance or drag resulting from movement of the front of the blade. Remember that blades are offset by a certain angle, so there is always a cost in conversion efficiency because the drag of the blade-front must be accounted for. I believe they use the usual three-bladed design for this purpose. Filling in the ‘gap’ with more blades apparently doesn’t do the trick. Here’s a better one for you: See my wind-turbine design I entered in the 2010 Nasa Create the Future Design Contest where I use principles of a Crookes radiometer incorporated into a wind turbine. Thermal transpiration, or heat moving from one side of the blade to the other, adds to the efficiency. It’s not like getting something for nothing though; it just uses energy from other parts of the radiomagnetic energy spectrum. Try it if you want. Just blacken one side of each blade of a wind turbine (windmill) and leave the other side silvered or whitened and you will see the turbine spin with additional captured energy from the sun!

Yeah double the blades won’t quite double the power but the power is dependent on the surface area of the blades and doubling the surface area by doubling the blades will generate more power per tower (assuming 3 blades per shaft) . There’s still enough wind area open between the 3 blades to power the back 3 blades. Turbulence sucks some of the back blade power away and so does aligning the front and back blades (when the front blades block the back cyclically).
It’s the same for solar except doubling the surface area will double the power.

Hi Adam,
I like the idea of keeping this forum open because it’s related to energy-conversion technologies. Let me elaborate though on a few principles I’ve learned over the years. The most important physical principle (which is also applicable to life in general) is: You can’t get something for nothing! The efficiency of any heat-conversion process, which usually includes an engine of sort (whether Randy calls it one or not), depends on the hot-side temp minus the heat-sink temp over the heat-sink temp. So the hotter the working gas is, or the colder the heat-sink is the more efficient at converting heat Q inputted into useful work. Take solar energy for instance, max energy availabe for a square-meter of receiving surface area is about 700 watts (on a sunny day!), but even the most efficient concentrator-type steam-cycle conversion processes are only about 25% efficient (not theoretical Carnot efficienny, but actual mechanical conversion efficiency). That means only about 1/4 of the 700 watts/meter-squared available can be realistically converted to useful work output. Solar cells or PV cells are only 6 – 15% efficient, by the way, and they produce only low-voltage DC current which is hard to convert, transfer, and use! So let’s say we have what we think is the most efficient wind turbine design ever conceived or built and we have it generating electricity. There is only so much energy available to convert to work and since it is only a mechanical conversion device (not a heat-conversion process) it can only convert the limited amount of energy in the moving air or wind that is impinging on its blades (there is no more!) So Bob is right when he questions whether multiple layers of blades will do anything to increase the amount of work output. People build concept engines that have novel piston and blade designs where they have things moving in all directions at once, and what they don’t realize is that there are no real gains at all in their ability to convert heat into work. They simply introduce more friction into the process or else they run into mechanical sealing problems (which they usually don’t ever consider because they lie to themselves!) The good ol’ internal combustion reciprocating-piston engine works so great, however, not because of its energy-conversion efficiency, but rather because of the tremendous amount of available energy in a gallon of gas (I believe 43 Megajoules!). So it really doesn’t matter if so much energy is wasted in an automobile before any work is derived to actually drive the wheels, since say 20% of 43 Megajoules is still a lot of energy or work output to drive the wheels! Unfortunately, fossil fuels will soon run out and we as consumers are very spoiled by the dependable, compact, and very powerful IC engines we use everyday! Now, the biggest drawback for using a turbine engines (gas-turbine)in a car is that the turbines must operate at high rpms and temps to be efficient, and that is not conducive to using them for motive power. And I keep harping on motive power such as for trains, planes, and autos, because that’s what needs to be improved. We have ample coal, natural gas, and nuclear resources for stationary electric power generation, but it’s our use of autos that makes us totally-dependent upon foreign derived fossil fuels (oil from the Mideast!)

I haven’t tinkered with this idea in quite some time. This forum has motivated me to head out to the garage and see what I can whip up.

So, have we really shut this down?

For the counter-rotating wind turbine, I’m not sure that you ‘double’ the power. Once the moving air (i.e. “the wind”) has gone past the first set of blades it has lost some (most?) of its energy and there is not as much if any left to deliver to the rear set of blades.

I believe, but am not sure, that’s why the couple wind farms I’ve seen have the units stationed far apart in an irrregular pattern. Otherwise they’d cram as many turnbines as they could, without hitting, in as small an area as possible.

I don’t know what the exact numbers are, I’m just saying it would be necessary to determine what loss there is.

And I don’t know how this would or wouldn’t apply to a steam generator.

Hi Adam,
I agree with you totally, but I’ve learned over the years that it takes money to make money – that is, unless you’re the US Government where they just print more and more. So Bill Gates and Oprah have a great advantage over us. For instance, say my idea for a Tesla turbine with counter-rotating plates does happen to work and say we all got together to develop it (including Inventus), then sooner or later we’ll need a financial backer. And even if it was patented, the people with money would be successful in taking and using it without our permission! The Patent Office won’t help. They really don’t care either! I wish what we say on this forum would reach the right ears and my only reward may be limited to knowing my idea was good enough to warrant them stealing it from me! You see, to me having an inventive spirit and creating something that becomes an extension of one’s own being is reward enough. If someone else steals it to make money, then at least the world benefits from your invention – but it’s still your invention no matter what! There’s more to inventing than doing it to make a buck. Jesus said it well in that Man does not live on bread alone!

I think this forum should turn into a collaborative on-line design forum for the most efficient power generation turbine ever conceived. We all just split the proceeds for contributing. I don’t need to be Bill Gates rich or even Oprah rich. You would be surprised by how few millions of dollars I could squeeze by on, so there is plenty to go around.

People like Inventus really have nothing to offer, at least to me anyway. Adam, however, is asking the right questions, and more importantly, he is humble enough to ask for our opinions and to get the help he needs. It’s the help we all need! Otherwise, why are we all dealing with EN in the first place? Talk is cheap, and I still say that EN is our best partner to cooperate with!

@papajim and @inventusinterruptis
Hey you two. You both sound like geniuses. I’m really super impressed that you both know so much about turbines and working on actual prototypes. It would be a shame if you you two stop exchanging ideas. I think you two have a lot in common and could potentially help each other out!! Is there anyway you two can “friend” each other and maybe smooth things out via EN email? I’ll check on your profiles in a couple of hours to see if you’ve added each other to your friend’s list. How awesome would that be! Thanks!

My bet stands!

I was just kicking around a thought-problem that a professor once gave me. I never divulged my idea for the solution and one day maybe I’ll go out to the garage and throw something together as a proof-of-concept. Until then, I’ll keep putting my wife through school and continue to volunteer rehabilitating rescued fight dogs.

I just saw someone mentioning turbines on the inventorspotblog.

First of all I’m not working on an engine.

Second: Yes… I do in fact have a working prototype.

Third: Brainstorming is an obvious necessity. However, in my opinion, a forum where inventors are trying to make money from their potential IP should be careful while pondering the possible solutions.

Paranoid? No. Insane? No. Mildly neurotic? Aren’t we all.

But I’m done discussing this with you.

Hey Randy,
Wait a minute! Who’s trying to snuff out people from inventing? You made a non-sensical request for us to shut up when it was obvious we (or at least me!)were just having a little fun. Heaven forbid if we just happened to touch on an idea you’ve been working on for three years. Now I’ll put you on the spot: I bet you haven’t built a working prototype of your engine – not a one! Most people who come up with novel concept engine designs never ever build a prototype because of exactly what I said…they usually don’t already have the resources to do so or they don’t have the credentials to get funded, and most of all… nobody cares about your engine and they also don’t care about what we say on this forum. Even if we by chance had described the perfect engine in our rantings on this forum that burns water to operate, and even if we had it built and operating in front of them, do you honestly think they’re going to scrap the gazillions of proven IC engines out there for our design. Not hardly. Maybe I was bragging a little, but I do have a patented engine that I am now just building a prototype of, because I was fortunate enough to have another housewares invention that made it successfully in the market. By the way, see patent #7387093 because I gave the wrong number last writing (I have so many!) I can tell you volumes about my endeavors to get the engine funded, but when all is said and done, we either do it all ourselves (so be ready!)or trust our inventions to organizations like EN, which is the most important thing I want to say! Don’t stop inventing, but ease up on yourself because paranoia can be a first sign of insanity. Yet, we all have to be a little crazy to be inventors anyway. Ask anyone around you; they know!

Oh-my-gosh… what was I thinking! I’m just not capable of such an endeavor!

I am gonna scratch my idea because PapaJIm sez I can’t do it.

In fact, we should ALL just give up on any major breakthrough technologies we’re working on, because darnit – we just don’t have the credentials or sponsorship.

Thank you PapaJim.

Here’s the point: I have a patent for an engine that incorporates all the beneficial characteristics of the Fairbanks-Morse 38D8 engine(a jewel dual-opposed piston engine) and I’m just now building the prototype since I received royalties for another housewares invention (CoverFresh food covers). So if you haven’t got the resources already to build your energy-related invention, then you are out of luck anyway. By the way, see patent #7157884. Even if we all worked together on this forum to come up with the greatest engine design ever conceived, nobody would care or even realize what we have done because we don’t have the credentials or the sponsorship needed to get it off the ground. Let’s hope EN cuts a deal with Barrelled, so we’ll all have a chance!

Yeah, don’t even think of patenting my idea for a counter-rotating Ponzi scheme. I’ve been working on it for three hours and I know it will eventually work! Oh, oh, now the one year clock is running! Quick, any investors out there?

In my opinion, discussing this in an open forum is a REALLY bad idea because some people (like me) have been working on a version of this for about 3 years.

I’ve gone through many levels of prototyping, and am currently working on a novel stator and rotor design.

By discussing this openly, publicly, there’s a real possibility you can destroy (or at least start the clock) on the patentability of certain features.

So I’m begging you to end this discussion (pretty please?)… and least publicly.

Ralf, that is quite an idea. The challenge for that would be input/output for the flow of steam if it were a conventional in-one-end-out-the-other system.

If each set of blades had their own independent generator at the center, there would be no need for a nested set of co-axial axles. Or if each pair of blades shared a generator where the first was attached to the axle and the other to the casing, you could align as many blades as you wanted with proper seals inbetween.

Counter rotating ponzi scheme… that is just crazy enough to work.

Hey Adam,
That’s it! How about a counter-rotating Ponzi scheme? You invest some upfront, but eventually you get more back in the ‘arrears’! And as the number of people investing increases, the amount of energy in the system increases because more people will have to go back to work when they lose their entire life savings!

Once I switched to finance from physics, I had a finance professor tell the class if we invented a financial product that no one understood, we would be rich. I hate to break it to all of you, but the collateralized debt obligation, credit default swap, and other derivatives have already been invented. People love to invest in what they do not understand. It makes them feel elite and savvy.

I’m usually fascinated by all of Tesla’s stuff. That is an interesting turbine and sounds like it is still a bit ahead of its time.