PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki: Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies.
Talk:Congress:Member:Sterling D. Allan
I posted this below for Sepp. I think hes a little strange - can I say that here?TidalEnergy 06:42, 30 Jan 2008 (EST)
On Jan. 29, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Sepp Hasslberger writes:
I had first voted "not top 100", then changed to "top 100" but now have again changed to "not enough data". The reason for this is that there does not seem to be any hardware that is anywhere near deployment.
1. The actual turbine configuration and generator, it seems, has not been decided on. The article says "D&H plan to keep cost down by the use off-the-shelf generators, readily available in the industry, which are robust in ocean environments; such as are used in the submarine industry." I am unaware of any "off the shelf" underwater turbines and generators. In fact, one of the greatest trouble with marine energy production is that material degradation in the salt water environment has not been solved, at least not to the extent where one could just buy a turbine and generator "off the shelf".
Sepp, the farmer said - "there aint no such animal as a giraffe" - when it was described to him because he had never seen one before. TidalEnergy 06:38, 30 Jan 2008 (EST) Just so everyone knows here is my giraffe - http://www.haywardtyler.com/ I hope theses folks don't mind me giving em a plug here as they make excellent specialist built generators for the marine energy industry. There are to many companies to list here that make off the shelf gear boxes.TidalEnergy 06:38, 30 Jan 2008 (EST) 2. The "projects" part of the official website is empty. There does not seem to have been any substantial testing of the necessary hardware, at least judging from the available data on the company's site. No prototype generator has been installed anywhere, much less gone through the rigors of actual use, yet the article states that "the company is now commencing the commercialization stage". We should ask how they are going to commercialize if the configuration has not been fully decided on, much less tested.
There has been testing up to the commercial prototype. The web site was down graded soewmtime back to stop copy cats. It may not fit your ideas of how things should be done - but this is the way we decided to do it. Whether our strategy is right or wrong does not necessarily mean it has not been done. My advice is to look at the photos. A 40 foot boat to carry a tubine being tested is a dead give away. TidalEnergy 06:38, 30 Jan 2008 (EST) 3. The idea of increasing velocity of water flow by providing a narrowing path is great. I have proposed to use this in a river-flow hydroelectric setting in Dynamic Hydropower (http://www.hasslberger.com/tecno/tecno_2.htm). However as it currently stands, I do not see the Davidson Hill Venturi as a ready technology as yet. It just isn't ready to deploy from what I can see, and it isn't even close.
It is currently under commercialisation in North America, the EU (two countries), India and Australia in 2008. You should read about it in the media soon. More then what I would expect from some technologies on the Top 100 list. I said it before and say it here agian - the Top 100 needs serious review. TidalEnergy 06:38, 30 Jan 2008 (EST)
Viktor Schauberger wrong formula?
Looking closer at the article on Viktor Schauberger's formulas I have come to the conclusion that they may be wrong. The correct formula for energy in moving water is
Power (in Watts) = 0.5 x rho x A x v3
A turbine efficiency is then added to the equation,
Power (in Watts) a turbine can extract = 0.5 x rho x A x v3 x Ctp.
There is no pressure or head factor in the equation.
I would say that all his numbers on the energy available in flow are therefore wrong.TidalEnergy 22:11, 5 Feb 2008 (EST)