"sheerwind"

[vtpeaknik]

So is there really something here? http://sheerwind.com/technology/how-does-it-work

My first guess is that this is misguided, since channeling a high-speed flow of air through a relatively long and narrow tube uses up a lot of energy on drag (friction).

OTOH inefficient use of energy otherwise completely wasted can be a good thing.  E.g., a 10%-efficient solar panel is a lot better than no solar panel.  That said, the comparison should be not to nothing but to a conventional wind turbine.

[Flux]

The idea seems to keep cropping up, the only viable version I have ever come across was the Enfield Andreau machine, which used a more conventional approach  with a hollow prop but used the air turbine at ground level. This looks to be another version of the power station cooling tower idea.

Flux

[fabricator]

You would need to see numbers to know if there is anything to it or not, my guess is, FAIL.

[bob golding]

this has come up before. from what i understood of the paper they wrote they haven't  modeled it with a turbine in it yet. my guess and someone else's far more knowledgeable than me was that as soon as you start to draw power the air will back up and the figures go out of the window. cant see the point myself. its big ugly and would be lucky to last a cornish summer let alone a winter down here on the coast. its mid may and we have just had a 69 mph gust. was working inside the yurt at the time so noticed it. might just be viable in low wind areas, but why bother when solar is so cheap? unless you are really short on space for solar?

the other problem i can see is even if it did work i bet it would howl like a banshee.

[ChrisOlson]

'69 Camaro with the same principle - that big thing on the top funnels air in there.  There's sort of like a "venturi effect" just on top of the blower.  Then it goes thru a gizmo that makes the McCreary's smolder.

Makes 600% more power with the big scoop thing.  And it's not government subsidized.



--
Chris

[Aussie1945]

I think it is all bogus.

In the Sheerwind web site FAQ page, they claim that their turbine can generate as much power as a traditional turbine using a much smaller air intake (swept diameter)... they indicate that traditional turbines need 4.5 times the area of wind that theirs does for the same power output (85m dia. Vs 40m dia. for 1.8MW output). 

Traditional HAWTs operate in the 40-45% Cp range so it seems to me that they are claiming that the Sheerwood turbine is operating at 4.5 X 40% = 180%.  They are getting more power out of the wind than the wind had in it in the first place?   

There must be some explanation to this.  I wrote to the CEO but he would not answer the question.  He just said the question was so silly that he was not going to answer it.  He does not seem to answer any questions.

Am I seeing things correctly?  Is Sheerwind claiming something even better than perpetual motion?

Aussie1945