In defence

[wpowokal]

http://www.fieldlines.com/story/2009/3/21/115926/977

From what I can see this poster put forward a legitimate question. To the informed it was not practical and therefore "overunity'.

But how are any of us to learn if we do not ask, there was no reference to a generator that defied physics merely a reasonable question, in my opinion.

To me this was his/her first post and probably last, to close this string as over unity was a little harsh IMHO. end rant.

allan down under

[spinningmagnets]

I have to agree that there's not much power to be harvested there, but even so, I try to be encouraging when possible.

One of the most frequent RE complaints seems to be that an enthusiasts site doesn't have enough wind, or existing wind is too slow to be worthwhile.

The multi-bladed wind-pumps of the steam engine era have good torque in slow winds, but in higher winds, most of the wind flows around it due to high solidity.

With only 15 feet of head to work with (perhaps a few more if adding an elevated water tower) a wind-pump could lift water to the top, and then when a reservoir is full, a valve is tripped to flow through some type of Kaplan/Banki to generate some watts...

But when I contemplate how such a system would cost, compared to how many watts would likely be generated, its much like telling a very heavy person that they are "guaranteed to lose weight" if they get a haircut and clip their nails...

I'd suggest the first question should be "whats your budget"?