Author Topic: Refine design without going bigger. More bang for the buck!  (Read 5496 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GeorgeT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Refine design without going bigger. More bang for the buck!
« on: February 11, 2006, 07:38:31 PM »
Back again. Life get's busy and I have a new job.  Cable installer in the area... Well, it's a living I guess.  Cost of living going up after Katrina rolled through the area, then the energy bills here increased by 25%.  At least the pay is good and overtime is plentiful so we are making it. Now if there were just 30 or more hours in the day!


I have noticed that the direction of the board sponsors has been to bigger wind mills in order to gain more power.  Custom cut parts and laser cut plates.  It's really great to see such nice equipment being produced, but is getting beyond the reach of many "Do It Yourself" types interested in doing as much as they can for themselves.  More and more specialized, if you will.


Is there a chance of projects in refining smaller systems using methods that do not include the cost of having parts cut out or laser cut disk plates.  Such as using single thickness disk brake rotors or large metal "blind" pipe flanges and other readily available parts?  You know. Getting more "bang for the buck" out of the less cost intensive setups.


Just thinking that there might be room for refining smaller designs before going to larger ones that are less forgiving of error.


Cheers!


George

« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 07:38:31 PM by (unknown) »

amiklic1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Refine design without going bigger.
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2006, 01:15:15 PM »
Even if I am not building something similarIot, Ilike the pictures from Mondays alot . It'sgreat to see that something so large and powerfull can be done by youself. I think it's good to share the idea. And the owners of the board are not the only ones here. All of us have some ideas, pictures, advices... Some members spent more money only for the magnets than I did for my complete setup. But it's good. They maybe need more power. And maybe have more money. Maybe have more knowledge, or time, who knows???

20' is too big for me now. Even 10' is, to be honest. I am flying my 4' wind generator (H.Piggot's design), and I'm building two others, but changed a bit.

Even with this small one I have a few problems, fortunately easyly solved.

But, it's allways good to se what can be done. It keeps me going. I plan to build 10' in the near future, and after that, who knows? 15'? 20'??? MKaybe with laser cutted parts, maybe something allready available. It's not the problem Everyone should use what he(she) have. That's the real DIY.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 01:15:15 PM by amiklic1 »

DanB

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2151
  • Country: us
    • otherpower.com
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2006, 01:17:57 PM »
Hi George - good thought, I often think the same thing myself sometimes.  I'll offer some of my thoughts your posting.


"  Cost of living going up after Katrina rolled through the area, then the energy bills here increased by 25%."


The cost of energy seems to be rising quickly all over!


" I have noticed that the direction of the board sponsors has been to bigger wind mills in order to gain more power.  Custom cut parts and laser cut plates.  It's really great to see such nice equipment being produced, but is getting beyond the reach of many "Do It Yourself" types interested in doing as much as they can for themselves."


The cost is still pretty small (if it works out) compared to a 'store bought' turn - key system.  Very small by comparison.  I think, especially once things start getting larger and the whole system starts becoming large and somewhat expensive (batteries - inverter - conductors - towers etc...) the I hate to save a few bucks and make a mess with a torch when I could pay somebody to cutout really nice parts.  There's no doubt in my mind that windpower becomes less expensive per KWH as the machines get larger.


  More and more specialized, if you will.


"Is there a chance of projects in refining smaller systems using methods that do not include the cost of having parts cut out or laser cut disk plates.  Such as using single thickness disk brake rotors or large metal "blind" pipe flanges and other readily available parts? "


Yes, I think lots of that is going on here by different folks.  Some great stuff lately about using hard drive magnets - salvaged wire and other parts.  I think we did a lot there with brake rotors and all and they work fine - the machines are a bit clunkier but they work just as well.  Past that sort of thing though I'm not sure to simplify or salvage more stuff.   No matter what we do, if its a serious system it's going to require batteries, an inverter - a tower etc...  there will be expense.  HOw much we save building the wind turbine itself by salvaging parts is probably fairly insignificant.  Even building a machine - vs buying one is not always that big a savings (sometimes it is).  Most of us do this because it's fun, practical decisions are not always fun!


 "You know. Getting more "bang for the buck" out of the less cost intensive setups."


I agree...  there are lots of compromises.  To some degree lately I care about how the machine looks so Im willing to spend a bit to have things come out cleaner - and lighter weight.


"Just thinking that there might be room for refining smaller designs before going to larger ones that are less forgiving of error."


We're always doing that too and I usually try to post about our new ideas or what we think might be better ways of doing things.  Every time we build a 10' machine we figure out some little improvement I think.  We're also currently working on a very simple single rotor 7' machine which should be fun to test here in a week or two.  While were not using brake rotors - we could just as well be and I think anybody can modify a design to use salvaged parts.


It's lots of fun - I think (hope) that we're always moving foward in one way or another.  

« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 01:17:57 PM by DanB »
If I ever figure out what's in the box then maybe I can think outside of it.

zubbly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2006, 02:22:36 PM »
hello GeorgeT!


for a while there, i thought a big gator had you for his lunch.  kinda missed hearing from ya on the irc chat. drop in some time.


you are correct george, many of the machines do seem to be getting bigger, fancier and made from less salvaged parts all the time. i have been involved with building wind gennys for a few years now and just really do it for a hobby.  bit i think some of us have gone past the main learning curve and are just experimenting to see what we really can do if we wish.  basically, do what you can afford to do and don't tell your wife what we really spend on it.  lol!


you did bring up a great point though, there is always room for improvment. lately i have seen some people realy picking apart the connections we use as well as different ways to rectify the windings to get more output from them. much advancement lately on making blades, great discussion on optimising coil and magnet shape, and quite a few improvments on epoxys, fillers and even shared information on simple ways to make a good connection on multiple magnet wires.  all little things, but great improvements.


i am on the electronic challenged list.  not that great at understanding the use of electronic parts or making up simple boards for things like star/delta control and load diversion.  so my current project is making a star/delta controler, but using the wind to create a vacumm to control the change over. preliminary so far, it seems to work. i will post on it when it is running and got some performance data to share.


nice hearing again from you georgeT and look forward to seeing what you come up with in the advancement of home brewed gennys in the future!


have fun!


zubbly

« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 02:22:36 PM by zubbly »

kitno455

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2006, 02:44:16 PM »
if you intend to rely on the power you create (like our hosts), i would suggest that skimping is a bad idea, as later you will feel your time wasted.

if this is just a hobby (like me), i think skimping can be a way to keep from dumping too much cash into it, and it gives you a chance to be creative.

that said- see my diary. the auto salvage yard seems to provide the best bang for the buck on everything other than mags, wood and wire. if you can find a dead electronics packrat, you can get wire from transformers and relays, plus small rectifiers, mags and heatsinks from dead PCs/TVs.

allan
« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 02:44:16 PM by kitno455 »

DanG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
  • Country: us
  • 35 miles east of Lake Okeechobee
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2006, 03:57:30 PM »
trying not to irritate the Cable guy...


Preaching to the choir again? (just kidding!)  Humbly I suggest safety trumps cheap in a New York second. Purpose built may chafe the pocket book a bit but time, effort & money to track down stuff by someone who maybe has never seen the inside a junkyard is a waste of energy if you scale in the 350,000,000 North Americans who could be reading this, not just the folk trying to clean up their back yard : )


Many of the old timers here at some point have been seriously bummed having off-the-shelf components fail just as they were starting to be relied on. Tom W still has a turbine blade missing after a threaded plumbing fitting failed - why build trouble in?


I'm sure the box-fan will still get alot of attention, as will auto-alt's and lawn-art; a perfect free-market in progress here where a lucky few can get something for nothing but for the rest of us there is always a charge...

« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 03:57:30 PM by DanG »

GeorgeT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Refine design without going bigger.
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2006, 08:39:36 PM »
Yup.  I was hoping for more intensive efforts in the development of smaller units is all. I like the DIY side of it
« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 08:39:36 PM by GeorgeT »

GeorgeT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2006, 08:57:16 PM »
Hey DanB.  Thanks for the reply.


  I wish all the increased in price around here was the energy bills, but that is not the least disconcerting issue.  They are rebuilding in place with no concerns for upgrading this area with seawalls or even increasing building codes in the low lying areas.  100's of miles of wetlands are totally trashed.  Water rolled in places 30 feet high and all the trees are reduced to salt blacken sticks on the coast.  All the while people are happily hammering away.  Their choice, but no way would I do it.  Even 5 miles inland we lost shingles and a barn here.


  I agree on cost of the various parts, but that isn't really what I was referring to.  I believe that the smaller designs have not been explored to the highest potential and was curious if further experimenting on smaller models was planned using new components.  Not salvaged components as I understand that using what you can find isn't always the best idea because you can deplete your sources pretty quickly.  Using a new single thickness disk brake rotor from a motorcycle front wheel for instance or off the shelf Blind Pipe flanges (solid metal disk).  Still new, but "off the shelf" so to speak.  Typically such pipe flanges are available cheap and up to 3 feet in diameter and 1/4" to 2" thick, so 10 or 12 inch diameter flanges would be cheap.  New stuff.


  Multiple rotor/stator machines.  Variable air gap, etc..


Just thinking out loud.


Cheers!


George


 

« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 08:57:16 PM by GeorgeT »

GeorgeT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2006, 09:06:21 PM »
Hey zubbly.  Good to hear from ya.  Life happens and it always comes quick.  Had to take a job as a cable installer/field engineer.  But lots of cable to string in the area and the pay is good along with the benefits, though the overtime is not leaving me any time as of yet.  We are still ahead of the game though, as I can't stand "making ends meet".  Ain't been a gator yet what had the gall to take a bite out of me, though I can remember one looking at me in a 12 foot jon-boat like I was a morsel. It was about 15 feet long.  Glad it lost interest when I whacked it with the paddle.


Sounds familiar, but I am on the opposite end of the stick as I can build a rectifier in my sleep!  I just think there is a lot of room for improvement on the smaller designs before going bigger.  I guess one of the days when I get a little time to spare I will have to experiment some myself.


I try to find time to visit but have so much to do that most of the time I end up logging in, then running off to do something else or falling asleep!  I am always logged on to Undernet using nick GeorgeT as I do have some business contacts I have to maintain contact with there so feel free to give me a shout.  I don't know if I will be around, but always appreciate finding messages online when I do sit down.  Keep a can of flux spray warm for me pard!


GeorgeT

« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 09:06:21 PM by GeorgeT »

GeorgeT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2006, 09:11:15 PM »
Not talking about skimping or even using salvaged components.  Just more refined designs that are in the 10 to 12 foot range.  Disk brakes on motorcycles and some trailers are single thickness which are a weight savings.  Large pipe flanges are available off the shelf in a variety of size and thicknesses.  Other possibilities too, such as multiple rotor/stator machines.  Variable air gaps, etc...  Just thinking out loud.  Anyways, thanks for the reply and Cheers!


GeorgeT

« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 09:11:15 PM by GeorgeT »

GeorgeT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2006, 09:13:57 PM »
Would you believe the first thing my wife did when she found out I got hired was to go out and buy a copy of the moive "Cable Guy" since I had never seen it?  LOL!  I thought it was hillarious.


I would never compromise safety and wasn't implying using salvaged components.  Just sticking with a smaller design and refining it for "more bang for the buck".


Thanks for the reply and cheers!


GeorgeT

« Last Edit: February 11, 2006, 09:13:57 PM by GeorgeT »

Volvo farmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2006, 02:06:11 AM »
I think the reason behind the interest in going to bigger machines is the simple physics involved. I do not remember the formula but every time I have seen it posted here, it makes perfect sense why if you want to generate serious electricity, a bigger mill is better.


I'm almost certain that an exponential equation is involved with the diameter of the machine and the available power from the wind. So if you could somehow squeeze another 20% of efficiency out of a 4' turbine design, you could just replicate the old inefficient design in an 8' variation and perhaps quadruple your power generation, simply because the swept area can capture much more of the wind's power. My math might be off a bit but I think my general principle is correct.  

« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 02:06:11 AM by Volvo farmer »
Less bark, more wag.

hvirtane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
    • About Solar Cooking
What about bigger and simpler machines??
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2006, 04:44:33 AM »
I think that there is another way, too.


If you'll make your machine bigger

and simpler you would get more

power using less money?


I think that the general plan

of the axial flux PMG generator

is basically

good. The biggest problem

I'm seeing with it is the price

of the magnets needed.


I've been thinking about

an axial flux induction generator,

direct drive. Essentially it

would consist of two rotors

and the stator in between.

The rotors would look quite the same

as with the dual rotor PMG, but instead

of the magnets there would be the rods

of the induction ('squirrell cage')

generator's rotor. With that one

no expensive magnets would be needed.

What do you think?


I think that the blades could be made

big and simple with different methods.


One possibility is to use triangular

sail wings.




Another possibility is to make them

like in these pictures:










I've been experimenting with my friends

with really simple wooden blades.

http://www.fieldlines.com/story/2005/12/29/205319/65


- Hannu

« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 04:44:33 AM by hvirtane »

oztules

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1477
  • Country: aq
  • Village idiot
Re: What about bigger and simpler machines??
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2006, 07:21:06 AM »
I think that the current style of pm alternator as expounded by the Dans, is an excellent design for the 1w up to maybe 3kw. At not far from where the Dans are now (maybe a few more feet larger ie 21-22 feet diam, this style will be unable to cope with the heat generated in what is really an insulated core. The mass of the mag plates and mags themselves will be starting to get rather huge and unweildly, and the bearing slop in the current design will become critical as diam gets bigger. It all starts getting tighter and tighter for tolerance and efficiency for the lower rpm presented by the larger machines blade topology.. when you start generating 5kw at 60-100 rpm, your'e gunna need a whole mess of wire and magnets and steel


At some point it will all get to expensive to continue on this route and we will probably see a move over to the commercial solutions... either gear up and use the current crop of pm alts or gear up and use standard altenator systems. This would probably be of the zubbly conversion type, where we will have robust and weatherproof housings, with industrial strength shafts with longer bearing to bearing distance to help stabilise the shaft. We may find that the altenator you talked off may just as well be an induction motor. not much point building one when it is already done for you, and may be rated for 10 or 20 kw. At these sizes, it would be prudent to do away with the pm's altogether, and use sliprings to excite the rotor, as the power to generate large mag fields would in the larger machines case, be very small compared to the output. ie you may use 50 - 100 watts in the rotor to generate 5kw in the fields.


A tendency to use "slacker" design in the larger blades will probably take place, as the power that can be expected from bigger designs, will allow us to cut corners, and still end up with lots more watts than we can use.


I like your alternative designs, and lets understand that the design of those dutch mills doesn't look to hi-tech, but they worked well enough to have many large devices built. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't work effectively. same goes for the cyprus sail mills, they didn't build thousands of them just to amuse themselves. i like the blade design using 8  100 x 19mm boards that you used too..........oztules

« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 07:21:06 AM by oztules »
Flinders Island Australia

GeorgeT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2006, 07:21:54 AM »
Bingo!  The math is what I needed to hear.  Makes sense to go bigger then if you are dependant upon off-grid power, rather than experiment.  Thanks DanB!
« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 07:21:54 AM by GeorgeT »

DanB

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2151
  • Country: us
    • otherpower.com
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2006, 08:25:19 AM »
Hi George - I really like to keep things simple.  I've thought about variable airgaps... seems quite complex and Im not sure there's much to be gained there.  Multiple magnet rotors/stators don't make much sense  (poor use of resources) untill we get so large that perhaps the diameter becomes a problem.


I like the basic design of the axial flux unit and things we're working on involve hopefully making them easier, lighter - stronger etc...  we are still working on small machines.  I think the large one Im working on now is probably nearing the practical limit for a battery charging machine.

With luck... either tomorrow or the following Monday we'll do some fun 'truck testing' with a small single rotor 7' diameter machine.  Havent done truck testing for a long time - I'm excited about that!  I probably won't bother to record our speed (my speedometer is only perfectly accurate when the truck is stopped and past that it doesnt work at all ;-) - just see how the output seems and see how well it furls.


Folks talk about heat in large machine - I may get schooled here, but as I see it - even this larger machine Im working on now, when compared to my current 17' machine...

I believe resistance is about 30 - 50% lower in the large one.  I expect it may be about 30 - 50% more powerful.  And the heat is disapated over a much larger area - so I expect it will be similar and I don't think that will be a problem.  Hopefully time will tell!  Axial flux PMA's are used in large machines and I don't see a problem with that.  At some point a gear box may become cost effective but I expect you'd have to be pretty large to justify that.

« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 08:25:19 AM by DanB »
If I ever figure out what's in the box then maybe I can think outside of it.

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: Refine design without going bigger.
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2006, 09:48:22 AM »
What would be my idea of an "ideal" small wind turbine design?  To begin with, it would have a relatively large (20 to 30% of the diameter) hemisphere at the center to catch and increase the incident airflow at the hub of the mill.  The blades would be designed to have a minimal width for their entire length to minimize drag (note that the working length is reduced compared to that of a normal design).  In order to do this the twist in the blade would be such that the attack angle relative to the apparent wind would be within the useful 12 degree range of lift for the airfoil profile used.  This would require a thicker piece of lumber to make the blades, a 4x6 0r 6x6 instead of a 2x6.  Finally, there would be a shroud or ring around the ends of the blades.  This would do two things.  It would break up the power robbing vortex that normally forms off of the end of a wing or blade, and it would stiffen the blades so they don't bend back at the tips and end up operating outside of the normal region of lift. This is important since the tip region is sweeping out the greatest power, and any losses here are going to be amplified.  This should also result in quieter operation.  Note that noise is power lost.


As far as the alternators are concerned, one approach would be to place more iron in the magnetic path, and to keep the air gaps small.  This will increase the flux through the coils allowing the use of smaller magnets.  The coils and magnets could be circular with the centers of the coils being partially filled by an iron rod.  This would hopefully allow one to reach a reasonable compromise between output and cogging.


None of the above should be beyond the capabilities of those building their own wind power systems.

« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 09:48:22 AM by finnsawyer »

kitno455

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2006, 10:17:08 AM »
but the law of diminishing returns is in effect on smaller gens. you can spend $10,000 bucks adding special angular contact bearings, and casting a light aluminum hub, figuring out a complex laminate solution (google search for clawfoot?), adding a MPPT controller, and perhaps feathering blades. you might get 10-20% more efficient.


you could also add 6 inches to the length of the blades, and ~200 bucks to the cost of the mags and wire, and get the same effect.


when you are in a neandertal situation, build the neandertal solution.


allan

« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 10:17:08 AM by kitno455 »

richhagen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Country: us
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2006, 10:55:49 AM »
When you double the diameter, the amount of air moving past the rotor goes up by 4, since the area of the circular swept area is pie times the square of the radius.  Therefore, a quickly cobbled together machine that is only half as efficient but twice the diameter of smaller machine will still produce twice as much power.  Of course, if your machines were of the same efficiency, then you would have 4 times as much power.  Rich Hagen
« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 10:55:49 AM by richhagen »
A Joule saved is a Joule made!

richhagen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Country: us
Re: Refine design without going bigger.
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2006, 11:16:02 AM »
My thoughts would be to increase the high wind survivability and reduce required maintenance and service on mills of the current dual rotor axial designs, idealy to one year intervals or greater.  They seem to function sufficiently to be of major utility, but the high wind survivability could still use improvement for most of the home brew units I have information on.  Then these types of mills would be of utility even to folks less handy than most of the folks who use this site.  Rich Hagen
« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 11:16:02 AM by richhagen »
A Joule saved is a Joule made!

craig110

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2006, 11:34:29 AM »
A lot of good comments have been posted here already, but I'll toss in my $.02 worth on this anyway.  I find all these discussions about pushing larger, getting custom machined parts, and yes, trying to get more power for a given size to reflect very well on wind power's future.  Consider it this way - if wind power was very difficult to tap into, we'd probably only have a few expensive designs that work only if you do them perfectly and the overall enthusiasm would likely be low.  Instead, "the community", as represented by the people on this board, has crossed well beyond the mental hurdle of asking whether wind power is viable and is now having fun trying different things with the technology.  Some people play with scaling up existing plans using the traditional methods.  Some play by machining more precise parts to see how much that improves the output.  Some (and I am in this category) like to play with radically different designs.  These are not competing interests!  Someone focusing on "bang for the buck" and someone else working on easier techniques for physically making larger mills can end up, together, allowing others to easily make mills that are both bigger and more cost-effective.  That is goodness for everyone.  If all of us wanted to push the same side of the design envelope, the rate of our collective technology progress would be a lot slower. Pick your direction and play!


Craig

« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 11:34:29 AM by craig110 »

vawtman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
Re: What about bigger and simpler machines??
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2006, 11:41:23 AM »
Oztules what do you think about just inserting a small mag in the rotor instead of run capacitors or sliprings for exitement?I have another 5hp to play with.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 11:41:23 AM by vawtman »

oztules

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1477
  • Country: aq
  • Village idiot
Re: What about bigger and simpler machines??
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2006, 02:44:22 PM »
hi vawtman, not sure i understand the question. Do you mean as an exciter for getting the induction motor to behave as a generator?  If so, i think you will still need the caps for continuous output. The problem as i understand it is that the frequency that this system requires is somewhere near its original design and in fact slightly higher than original ie fo 60 hz motors, i think you need to rotate at slightly higher than the 3600 or 1800 (2pole/4pole respectively) in order to generate the power. the other problem this brings with it is that you can lose load easily by frequency drift. ie if your too slow -no power, if your to fast you lose power, if you overload, you lose power, so probably brings more problems to the table than it solves. I might have this all arse about face, but i have no doubt i will be corrected  post haste if I am.


 The exciter magnet may work well with the slip ring version, as this will certainly help start up. Instead of using residual magnetism, to start the process, you bring your own kick starter along, and this may reduce cutin speed. Once going, the sliprings will drive the rotor field from the output generated (and regulated ...easily done), and mask all sign of the start magnet. Anyone with access to a lathe can build the rings onto the shaft. I saw somewhere here that some of the european guys were building a beautiful slipring rotorshaft.  (must rustle it up and look again)


The other advantage of their system, is that they can effectively control the "gap width" that we see on a pm by regulating the field intensity instead. They dont need to add line resistance to balance the blade to genny, they dont need to control gapping to control the power charastics, and with magnetic force being an  r squared arrangement we can see that if their rotor/stator gap is only 20-30 thousandths of an inch, and our pm alts are 750 - 1000 thousandths of an inch, the field required to emulate the big neo's is wickedly smaller.  


........ i think i got sidetracked a bit .....oztules

« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 02:44:22 PM by oztules »
Flinders Island Australia

vawtman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
Re: What about bigger and simpler machines??
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2006, 03:58:07 PM »
Hi Oz the answer to your question is yes.The more I think about it these things would be great for direct gridtie if the equipment and hassles are worth it.Is that how the big guys operate?I was thinking of making my own 3ph mini grid.Who knows still might.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 03:58:07 PM by vawtman »

oztules

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1477
  • Country: aq
  • Village idiot
Re: What about bigger and simpler machines??
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2006, 05:15:48 PM »
funny i'm moving to the same conclusion, however, it is the asynchronous generator that holds the keys to cheap grid intertie. Here we use the grid to provide the initial fields and then when we overdrive (go synchronous to the grid and then some small fraction (slip) over this speed, we generate power back into the grid. Provided you have a big enough motor to do this with, it will self regulate the wind turbine to no more than around 1% faster than synchronous. This means that the mill will run under (no power) but never overspeed. It solves many problems simultaneously. Speed overrun, frequency intertie without inverter, dont have to build gennie, it is standard motor no change, only drawback, is need a gearbox, and high start-up torque. The gearbox no matter how expensive is cheaper than 5kw of mags, epoxy, steel disks, and copper wire. The motors are usually dime a dozen three phase, so normally a quick scrounge will find on of these. I have several given to me ....and i'm on an island in no-place. 4kw and 7.5kw ....wired in delta they will give me 240v 50hz at 1515rpm (4pole) probably up to 5kw for the big one.


A draggy blade profile should do nicely, we need torque in fair quantity for starting up and we need to have blade stall not finnicky as the blade speed will be constant speed, rather than ranging up and down the rev range. (it is held constant by the load exhibiting variable torque. if more power is available, it will suck it up and hold the prop speed down).


so in essence, if the prop/gbox is underspeed, the mains will run the motor (so we isolate it, and if the prop/gbox is over speed we will add to the grid at correct frequency etc etc. seems too simple to be true, but i saiod that about my phase converter, and it is simple and it was true.


hope this helps with your deliberations. I'd go asynchronous motor for grid intertie, and slipring for dc applications at this stage of development


tell me what you think vawtman, perhaps this should be a different thread where people who really know what is required may see the thread

........oztules    

« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 05:15:48 PM by oztules »
Flinders Island Australia

hvirtane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
    • About Solar Cooking
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2006, 07:07:28 AM »
We may find that the altenator you talked off may just as well be an induction motor. not much point building one when it is already done for you, and may be rated for 10 or 20 kw. At these sizes, it would be prudent to do away with the pm's altogether, and use sliprings to excite the rotor, as the power to generate large mag fields would in the larger machines case, be very small compared to the output. ie you may use 50 - 100 watts in the rotor to generate 5kw in the fields.


There is a variety of problems

I wanted to solve with the

idea of 'an axial flux induction

generator'.


a) I wanted to have it as direct

drive, without any gearbox. Slow speed

many pole induction engines are

really are. Maybe it is doable

as an axial flux construction.


b) I wanted it be without irons

with field coils. Maybe possible with

two rotors as dual magnet rotor

axial flux PMG generators.


c) I wanted it to be self-made.


d) As a stand-alone machine induction

engines are suffering of the limited

RPM range. Maybe doable with several

sets of field coils.  


---


A slip ring motor and exciting the rotor

from outside.... That is an interesting

proposal.


Is it possible to get an induction

engine with slip rings working with

a wide range of RPM? If that works,

it could be a quite good machine

for big wind turbines.


In general it has been

a common practice,

with wind machines of about 10 m

wind rotor diameter for heating

purposes, to use gearboxes and

induction engines.


- Hannu

« Last Edit: February 13, 2006, 07:07:28 AM by hvirtane »

oztules

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1477
  • Country: aq
  • Village idiot
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2006, 02:55:58 PM »
yes hannu,


once you take the step of using sliprings and creating the magnetising field in the rotor, you have complete control of everything, except the wind itself. ie, you control the magnetic flux , the same control as a car alternator, you simply change the field excitation to control the output at any speed. So you may wish to load it up and hold the blades speed down, (with axial flux you would decrease the airgap to get more flux, or use bigger mags, or more turns), or you may wish to let it almost freewheel in light breeze and generate a tiny amount, all the variations in between are all on hand, simply by controlling the field current.


With the field flux being at your mercy, any amount of cunning devices could be made to give the mill differing characteristics, from  solidstate regulators to wind speed controlled pics, providing the generator is large enough compared to the blades, you could even try making it self stalling at higher wind speeds... ie loading up the blades so much that their efficiency declines as the wind speed goes up.


It must be remembered, nothing is for nothing, and the field will steal some proportion of the generated power, but if you make the mill 1 foot larger, this will probably compensate more than enough, and give you more flexability.......food for thought.


one thing you wont have to do is wind new stators every time you want new alternator/blade combinations simply change the field charastics from the regulator.


It could be a good test bed for blades as you can match the gennie to the blades and see what they will do  without being poorly matched for testing.


all sorts of things to ponder................oztules

« Last Edit: February 13, 2006, 02:55:58 PM by oztules »
Flinders Island Australia

vawtman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
Re: What about bigger and simpler machines??
« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2006, 03:51:57 PM »
Oztules I love the concept.The only concern I have is when things get up to speed and the blades are fixed wouldnt the blades slow and speed up.Or isnt it that much to overcome?Ill test both the pm and the asy and see how they compare.I did alittle research for my state today and got figues in 6grand range bullcrap.What size turbines are you flying now?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2006, 03:51:57 PM by vawtman »

oztules

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1477
  • Country: aq
  • Village idiot
Re: What about bigger and simpler machines??
« Reply #28 on: February 13, 2006, 04:28:56 PM »
hi flux  the wind presents really as a "variable torque" on a fixed wind speed blade, luckily, all the asynchronous wind turbines present a "variable torque" load to the wind. This seems to suit the wind farms just fine.


On the normal axial flux turbine, things are more fluid, as we increase our wind speed, the blades respond by spinning faster, and absorbing more torque and lots of other charastics, all in all they go faster and are in a position to generate more power (more torque and higher revs).


If you present a fixed speed blade to a faster wind, all that can happen is slightly faster airflow over the airfoils, and more torque delivered to the blades. More torque x same speed = more power. same as above. In the axial, the torque goes up by less than fixed asynchronous,as the blades move faster in the faster wind. but higher rpm balances the equation.


In asynchronous, the same speed blade presented with higher speed wind, presents a bigger speed differential than the axials blades,  so torque rises faster, but revs stay the same= power increase.


the other part of your question is yes the blades do speed up and slow down as the wind rises and falls, but in reality it is very tiny (less than 1%). This is because the induction generator will tolerate very little slippage. As soon as you try and get away faster, the generator clamps on more flux and holds it constant. I say constant, but appararently, the difference between 1500 rpm shaft speed (50 hz system)where no power is developed, to 1515 shaft rpm we may be developing full power for the system ie 0 too however many kw you are able to produce.


This gives you some idea of how tightly held the alt keeps the blades. I know it's hard to get the mind around, that such a small rpm change may give a multikilowatt change, but thats how asynchronous motors work as motors as well(slip in downward for motor of course.


So answer yes but not much at all. for all practical purposes we can say it remains about constant.


"I did alittle research for my state today and got figues in 6grand range bullcrap" I didn't quite understand what this meant?


.............oztules

« Last Edit: February 13, 2006, 04:28:56 PM by oztules »
Flinders Island Australia

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: Refine design without going bigger. More bang
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2006, 08:51:42 AM »
Building the blades is a time consuming process as well.  There have been some offers to make blades for people, but these tend to be 'cookie cutter' situations.  You buy their design.  I've had my eye out for someone that could manufacture blades to my design, to no avail.  I'd be willing to invest a few hundred dollars for such blades, as that would free up my time for work that I would rather do.


I have no interest at this point in building an alternator, since I figure an auto alternator can be used cheaply to evaluate the output of the mill, as I outlined in a previous comment.  The first step, as I see it, in designing an efficient mill is to evaluate and tweak the blade assembly.  Then you get into alternator design and electronics.    

« Last Edit: February 14, 2006, 08:51:42 AM by finnsawyer »

RobD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
The benefits of small machines
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2006, 07:33:26 AM »
Why I build smaller machines:


First, it allows me to make cheaper experiments. The larger you go the more your mistakes cost. Even as good as the Dan's are they still have breakdowns.


Several small machines allow you to contour more factors.

OK let's say you don't live in an ideal wind area. You get to build machines for low wind and high wind conditions. When the wind roars you get the benefits, when it is a light breeze you also get the benefits with your other mills.


When one large mill breaks you're stuck without power.

When you have a few small mills something is always turning even with our breakdowns and mistakes.


Smaller mills are less dangerous to build and easier to get up and take down. Something an experimenter is always doing. Large mills need more real estate to buffer flying parts from our neighbors too and one mistake can be very costly.


I do think there is a breaking point where small mills are to small and large mills are to large though and that point depends on your resources, ability and finances.


I think you also have to ask yourselves if you just want power or there is something more in it for you.

« Last Edit: February 23, 2006, 07:33:26 AM by RobD »

wvuengr04

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Slip ring induction design for grid tie
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2006, 09:34:56 AM »
Hi folks,


First post to the board, bear with me. :o)


I'm interested in building a simple relatively small direct grid tied turbine. To me simple means no inverter, batteries, gear boxes, or pitch control.  I don't mind building everything as long as it is simple and reliable and can be grid connected.


That leaves me with a direct drive turbine with a homemade induction generator with a wound rotor.  


Stall control allows varying amounts of energy to be produced at the same rotor speed with in the range of the lift curve for the blades. Having a controllable rotor allows there to be a speed range of 40 or 50 % of the sychronous speed of the generator instead of 1 to 5% for a squirrel cage design.


For a direct drive turbine, many poles are needed for synchronous speed to match the turbine speed. That requires a larger diameter. It'll need to be an ironless design like the axial flux machines on this board.  I've read an IEEE paper that relates blade diameter(power) to the diameter at the air gap for a radial flux machine with no iron. Of course the paper is describing a turbine size of 2 MW, but the ratio leading to a reasonable efficiency is the same at 0.23 or so. This gets the fields to interact well enough to be as efficient as a smaller machine with an iron core that would be much heavier.


Now for the rotor. This is where there is less info floating around.  You can power the field with slip rings or you can short it and vary the resistance of the coils and thus vary the slip of the machine. (there are also large commercial designs that actually generate DC current from the fields, control how much is being pumped out with an inverter and actually make money on the wound rotor instead of losing energy in controlling the turbine, but it involves one of those pesky, expensive inverters again.) It is possible that with the shunt wound rotor, you could contain the multiple resistors or a large variable resistance on the rotor and avoid the joys of slip rings. Depending on your situation, the slip rings might be easier though.


I've found lots of complicated info on motor design, but its all difficult to understand. The info I find is either way to complex or way to simple. Is there a simple reference or some rules of thumb to design the coils for the above case, ie, Ironless wound rotor induction motor/generator?


I think I'm comfortable with my design thus far and that the electrical portion of the design is simple enough to make in a reliable safe manner, but I doubt the power company has the same faith in me. In addition I've heard all kinds of horror stories about hooking up to the grid anyway. Has anyone had experience with grid tie where your equipment wasn't exactly UL listed?


I'd appreciate your comments,


Thanks,


Howard Mearns

« Last Edit: February 26, 2006, 09:34:56 AM by wvuengr04 »