Author Topic: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils  (Read 11649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 722
  • A dog with novelty teeth. What could go wrong?
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2007, 03:53:31 PM »
« Last Edit: March 30, 2007, 03:53:31 PM by RP »

kamikaze

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2007, 02:46:39 AM »
Hi Hannu,


To be honest I just draw the aerofoils that look right, based on instinct I guess.


I know its slightly off topic, but here are 2 pics of the flyweight governor I use for the pitch mechanism. One is a CAD rendering and the other the actual prototype.






Cheers

« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 02:46:39 AM by kamikaze »

willib

  • SuperHero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2414
  • Country: us
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2007, 05:07:25 AM »
Holy crap dude...

very nice!!
« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 05:07:25 AM by willib »
Carpe Ventum (Seize the Wind)

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2007, 07:45:51 AM »
Yes.  My comments basically spell out my ideas.  While we can be fairly confident of the laminar flow around the front half of the sphere, we cannot assume the solution will be valid for the rear half.  That's why the proposed tear drop shape.  The 50%speed up of air around the hemisphere means we need to redo the blade twist.  We will have greater twist.  The advantage would be that if it works we can get 22% more power from the same incident wind speed, and we get to use one half as long working air foil sections.  With a sphere of 30% of the radius we would get 15% more power.  Wind tunnel tests along these ideas would be useful.


As you may be aware, there has been some controversy lately about a pressure build up in front of the blade plane of a wind turbine.  Supposedly, Bernoulli's Equation does not apply across the blades.  It does apply for a static air foil.  One could envision a wind tunnel test where the air foil is allowed to rise very slowly.  In that case the air flow should not be affected, but a finite amount of work would be done.  There are different versions of Bernoulli's Equation based on different initial assumptions.  For instance, there is one that adds in the effect of gravitational potential.  I'll leave it there for people to comment, if they wish.

« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 07:45:51 AM by finnsawyer »

hvirtane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
    • About Solar Cooking
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2007, 09:34:48 AM »
To be honest I just draw the aerofoils that look right, based on instinct I guess.


You put so much effort on the machine that.. in your case I definitely would use a tested airfoil. My choice in this case would be K2 or something quite similar.


I know its slightly off topic, but here are 2 pics of the flyweight governor I use for the pitch mechanism. One is a CAD rendering and the other the actual prototype.


It is really impressive. Are you selling those drawings?

« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 09:34:48 AM by hvirtane »

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2007, 09:30:10 AM »
Another thing that appears to be shown by the first picture is the tip votices.  If we accept that these vortices rob the mill of power, then we can see their effect extends quite a way down the blades.  It might have helped if they had used another color for the turbulence caused by the tip vortices.  
« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 09:30:10 AM by finnsawyer »

kamikaze

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2007, 02:38:52 PM »
Thanks for the advice. I'll have a look at that aerofoil.


No I'm not selling the drawings. At the moment I'm trying to simplify the design, and at a later stage once I'm happy it all works properly, I'll share the design on this site.


Kamikaze

« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 02:38:52 PM by kamikaze »

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2007, 08:34:26 AM »
"Don't let it get to you.  If we all worked on the same project, and had the same opinions about design, this site would be really boaring."


Hmm?  So, the site would become a mass of wild pigs?  Interesting!  Hey, it's a slow day.  Chuckle.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2007, 08:34:26 AM by finnsawyer »

Nando

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2007, 07:53:55 PM »
Can you direct me to the web page to read such project ?.


Nando

« Last Edit: April 04, 2007, 07:53:55 PM by Nando »

paradigmdesign

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2007, 06:28:03 AM »
« Last Edit: April 05, 2007, 06:28:03 AM by paradigmdesign »

paradigmdesign

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2007, 06:33:01 AM »
I can't spell, I thought this wouldn't be a secret by now.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2007, 06:33:01 AM by paradigmdesign »

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2007, 08:11:12 AM »
I'll let you in on a secret.  Scoop has a spell checker, and one can still buy dictionaries.  The word "boaring" would have been flagged by the spell checker.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2007, 08:11:12 AM by finnsawyer »

paradigmdesign

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #45 on: April 05, 2007, 11:26:25 AM »
"There is no particular reason to use the hub designs currently in use."


I assume you are talking about the shape i.e. aerodynamics, and not the hub design itself.  I belive all you would end up doing with a design like that is wasting alot of materials in the hub, create extra loads on the tower, and rob power from the rest of the blades (creating unnessisary turbliance).  Any wind that is re-routed by the hub will be slowed, and will slow any wind that it comes in contact with (i.e. turblience).

« Last Edit: April 05, 2007, 11:26:25 AM by paradigmdesign »

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2007, 09:28:16 AM »
Actually, any time wind is "rerouted by" an object it is sped up as it passes the object.  This is true whether the object is a flat disk or a sphere.  I have discussed this many times.  There is a mathematical solution for fluid flow around a sphere.  You might look into it.  Of course, there are plenty of examples of such an effect in the real world, the most obvious of which is the effect of buildings.  And any time the air speeds up, it can provide more power.  You have to exert more force (do more work) to walk against the wind when between the buildings, than you would in a open field.  If the air did slow up when going around an object it would pile up with this bubble of slowed up air expanding without limit.  Nature doesn't allow that.    
« Last Edit: April 07, 2007, 09:28:16 AM by finnsawyer »

paradigmdesign

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #47 on: April 08, 2007, 05:42:01 PM »
"You have to exert more force (do more work) to walk against the wind when between the buildings, than you would in a open field.  "


Don't confuse air speed with air pressure.  I belive you will find that the wind is actually moves faster over a field than through buildings.


"If the air did slow up when going around an object it would pile up with this bubble of slowed up air expanding without limit."


It does build up pressure at the front of the building, but it does not build up forever because the low pressure that is created  on the other side gives the air somewhere to go.  Your design is not like the high pressure that is seen between buildings, but would be like putting turbines behind a building on the corners.  To get the aerodynamic affect that you are describing you would need a ducted fan, with the goal of keeping high pressure on the blades.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2007, 05:42:01 PM by paradigmdesign »

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2007, 07:56:54 AM »
So, how does an foil air work?  You can't have it many different ways.  There is only one physics.  It applies the same to air flow past air foils and around objects.  It is known from wind tunnel tests that the air over the top surface of an air foil speeds up, resulting in a lower net pressure along the top surface than along the bottom surface.  And lest you say that that is only a result of the geometry, I'd like to point out that acrobatic air planes use an air foil design that has positive camber on both surfaces.  Such an air foil will have zero lift at a zero angle of attack, but will exhibit usable lift at both positive and negative angles of attack, again due to faster moving air along the 'top' surface.  As I mentioned there are mathematical solutions for fluid flow around around at least two shapes, a sphere and a cylinder.  In the case of a sphere the speed up is 50%, and in the cylinder it is 100% just above the surface.  So, the air speeds up as it goes around trees or buildings or whatever.  The lower pressure area on the back side of the object comes about due to the lower pressure (venturi effect) of the fast moving air passing by.  This effect causes a 'swirling' of the air behind the object resulting in the lower pressure.  You have to keep in mind that Bernoulli's Equation applies to all regions of the air flow, since no external work is done.  If the air behind the object were not set in motion by the venturi effect, the pressure behind the object would be as great as the pressure in front, violating the actual physics.  As far as turbulence is concerned, air flow need not be turbulent.  I watched snow being blown of off a triangular shaped snow bank one time where the air slowed down and spread in an obvious laminar manner for several feet down wind of the bank.  I was surprised as I expected a vortice, but that's what it did.  
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 07:56:54 AM by finnsawyer »

s4w2099

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #49 on: April 09, 2007, 07:34:17 PM »
I think that it would work. Ive seen this design in a radiator fan that I have. I do not know much about the subject but it looks interesting I would love to see a prototype working.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 07:34:17 PM by s4w2099 »

s4w2099

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #50 on: April 09, 2007, 07:50:56 PM »
well, almost, The tips are not pointy in mine.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 07:50:56 PM by s4w2099 »

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2007, 08:34:23 AM »
I find it interesting that people are so willing to throw away that 25% of the power.  When I suggest a potential method for capturing that power and adding an additional 15 - 22% it seems that their eyes must glaze over.  Apparently they don't believe that the air speeding up in going around a sphere (or cylinder) would result in any useful effect.  Well, here's something to think about when lying awake at night.  Why is the leading edge of an air foil rounded rather than being brought to a 'knife edge' like the trailing edge?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 08:34:23 AM by finnsawyer »

Rob Beckers

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • Country: ca
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #52 on: April 14, 2007, 08:16:24 AM »
Kamikaze, that is absolutely beautiful! The thought of mechanical art comes to mind...


I've been looking through your photo album and have a number of questions regarding your alternator, wind turbine, and tools of the trade. I'd be happy to post here, but it may be more appropriate to take it offline. If you could be so kind to drop me a line at Rob-at-solacity-dot-com I would very much appreciate it!


Thank you!


-Rob-

« Last Edit: April 14, 2007, 08:16:24 AM by Rob Beckers »

dustind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #53 on: July 01, 2007, 07:46:04 PM »
So that the airfoil can operate over a wide range of angles of attack.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2007, 07:46:04 PM by dustind »

palomarbob

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Country: us
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #54 on: March 19, 2016, 03:06:41 AM »
ok to use naca 4420 airfoil from tip to root
 this data will help

=======================================================
windturbine                                                                                                          
find-tsr.exe                                                                 naca 4420         
                       s.radius   p.angle          n.blades s.chord                                       
s.ratio   w.angle                        s.bccl                          s.lift a.angle r.number
6.280   6.032°  1524mm 3.032° 212.1   3     88.45mm 0.799   3°        112513
5.396   7.000    1309      4.000   245.0   3     102.3      0.799   3°        112312
4.705   8.000    1142      5.000   279.0   3     116.5      0.799   3°        112071
4.165   9.000    1011      6.000   313.0   3     130.5      0.799   3°        111795
3.732   10.00    906.0     7.000   346.0   3     144.2      0.799   3°        111486
3.376   11.00    819.0     8.000   378.0   3     157.6      0.799   3°        111141
3.078   12.00    747.0     9.000   410.0   3     171.1      0.799   3°        110761
2.824   13.00    685.0     10.00   441.0   3     184.1      0.799   3°        110344
2.605   14.00    632.0     11.00   472.0   3     196.9      0.799   3°        109890
2.414   15.00    586.0     12.00   502.0   3     209.3      0.799   3°        109398
2.246   16.00    545.0     13.00   531.0   3     221.4      0.799   3°        108866
2.097   17.00    509.0     14.00   559.0   3     233.1      0.799   3°        108293
1.963   18.00    476.0     15.00   586.0   3     244.4      0.799   3°        107678
1.842   19.00    447.0     16.00   612.0   3     255.3      0.799   3°        107021
1.732   20.00    420.0     17.00   637.0   3     265.6      0.799   3°        106318
1.632   21.00    396.0     18.00   661.0   3     275.8      0.799   3°        105569
1.540   22.00    374.0     19.00   684.0   3     285.3      0.799   3°        104773
1.455   23.00    353.0     20.00   705.0   3     294.3      0.799   3°        103926
1.376   24.00    334.0     21.00   726.0   3     302.7      0.799   3°        103026
1.303   25.00    316.0     22.00   745.0   3     310.6      0.799   3°        102076
======================================================


SparWeb

  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member Plus
  • *****
  • Posts: 5452
  • Country: ca
    • Wind Turbine Project Field Notes
Re: An argument for thicker inboard airfoils
« Reply #55 on: March 19, 2016, 04:07:35 PM »
Hi palomar Bob,
(Welcome to Fieldlines)

Interesting to see this thread come back to life.  This was a subject I read about carefully, too, when I started building blades myself.
I, too, found that simple NACA airfoils were perfectly suitable for these blades and special profiles like Eppler and Selig weren't going to make a big improvement - certainly not as much has getting the chord and twist parameters right.

Where does the EXE program come from?
No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
System spec: 135w BP multicrystalline panels, Xantrex C40, DIY 10ft (3m) diameter wind turbine, Tri-Star TS60, 800AH x 24V AGM Battery, Xantrex SW4024
www.sparweb.ca