Thanks for watching! Don't forget, the first 100 people to use code ZIROTH at the link below will get 60% off of Incogni: incogni.com/ziroth ! Just realised I put some footage of a bigger turbines (that uses the same method of generation) which look pretty deadly and didnt give context - my thought was the smaller/lighter ones would not crush the fish! My bad for not being clear with this!
Interesting! Some thoughts: 1. The carbon footprint, lifespan, and recyclability of the two technologies would also have to be taken into account, and solar panels are... problematic... in all three regards. 2. Solar panels have to have a sturdy foundation, are fairly fragile, and require constant cleaning. This looks like it only requires an anchor and some form of grate to protect it from debris. 3. The main reason solar panels cost so little in comparison is because of their *HUGE* sales volume. This new turbine isn't able to enjoy that. ...yet. Cheers!
I am not sure if I understood why this is called bladeless when the ball/half hemisphere is clearly the blade. Furthermore, why is it any different to one with a blades when it comes to wildlife? On the face of it, it looks even less safe to the fish than the ones with blades. I am not pretending to fully understand the system but the ones using a "blade" are presummbly dangerous to the fish because the body of the fish could come into contact with a fast running "blade". If that is the case then the same thing applies to the "ball"/"semisphere", doesn't it? The only way round this problem is to rotate the ball tangential to the flow of water, i.e. the rotation not being directly in the path of the flow. But that doesn't match your demonstration or the diagram. May be that is the reason for the low of eiffiency but then 55% seems a lot for such an arrangement and I am not convinced by the idea that the vortex will carry on independently once started. of course how long it will carry on must be dependent of the ratio of the flow rate and the size of the outflow assuming there is zero potential energy due to gravity. If the rotating mass is as shown is direct in the path of the flow it needs to be large enough for the fish to get through and the larger the fish the more probablity of it getting squeezed beteen the rotating mass and the sides of container. Unless there is another mechanism to prevent the fish entering the system that I would imagine can easily be achieved using a mesh that lets the water through but not the fish. So, where it the problem that was supposed to be solved by this system? I can understand that the mesh needs to be easily permeable to water which unless we are talking about the tinyest fish and other aquatic larva it is not going to be problem given that nature has already seen to that problem though the ratio of eggs to those that survive long enough to procreate. Besides, there is always going to be the question of maintenace to clear the flow form dead vegitation and river sediments that will very much depend on the environment outside the system. So, the idea of what gets into the system falls within the parameters the maintenace anyway. So, can you please tell me what I am missing here? To be honest in the end none of these system are viable because they all depent on the speifics of the environment. Rivers are no where at steady as you present them to be. The flow rate changes all the time so you really need custom design for each case that given the changing climate is going to be oscilating between extremes. Riverbeds can go from being bone dry to sources of floods. So the whole premise is just wrong.
@@KeithOlson ⚠️ God has said in the Quran: 🔵 { O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous - ( 2:21 ) 🔴 [He] who made for you the earth a bed [spread out] and the sky a ceiling and sent down from the sky, rain and brought forth thereby fruits as provision for you. So do not attribute to Allah equals while you know [that there is nothing similar to Him]. ( 2:22 ) 🔵 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. ( 2:23 ) 🔴 But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.( 2:24 ) 🔵 And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, "This is what we were provided with before." And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally. ( 2:25 ) ⚠️ Quran
Definitely, I put some footage of a bigger turbines (that uses the same method of generation) which look pretty deadly - my thought was the smaller/lighter ones would not crush the fish! My bad for not being clear with this! Thanks for the comment :D
Exactly what I was thinking 👍 A larger, slower moving, greater resistance, rounded edged blade, would be safer for aquatic life. The other model shown looked superior and had better numbers. If this design incorporated the snail shell vortex producing lead in water, the spinning ball could be smaller, remain in the centre and allow aquatic life to swim around it, providing there is space between the ball and walls.
There are many channels on youtube that talk about new scientific concepts but never actually get to the point or setting it into context of real world application. They talk alot but don't say anything useful. First i thought you would be one of them but i am happy to see that you are actually getting to the bottom of those concepts.
AS an off grid low header, I made many experimental turbines and learned a lot. Efficiency can be up to 70% even with small 100 watt units at 3 feet of head. Self cleaning screens keep fish and debris out. All needs to be stainless steel, dissolved atmospheric CO2 attacks galv and concrete if turbulent. Critical aspect is not having fixed alternator speed, allow the system to self tune to the load. Switchmode electronic control.
Thanks for the video. Fascinating. As a keen fisherman I can relate to the desire for turbines that don't mince the fish. That said, looking at the footage you have shown here it looks like any hapless fish that found themselves going through one of these would run the risk of being crushed to paste where the "ball" meets the wall. Love your work. Cheers.
Yeah, it would be better to add safety net to prevent fishes wandering into the devices. The net need to be replaced at regular interval tho, and the net do reduces power generated by the 'ball'.
..well thay do already exist...thay are called hydro electric power dams... ...and this guys have invented a very poor verision of a tesla turbine.... ..wouldent surprice me if thay maned to hype it and get some investments at wich point that suddenly dissapear... req investors that dont know anything about physics ... its a pipedream...litterally...
Nah. Manufacturer makes it clear that you're supposed to put a protective grate/screen solution in front of the turbine. (Not just for fish, but other debris as well.) a couple layers of painted expanded steel seems to be the favorite.
@@QuakeDragon Good point. I can't help wondering, though, if the fish can't get through then wouldn't you just go back to the more traditional turbine with double the efficiency?
@@GarthClarkson Yes, that is absolutely valid. For the SETUR-L (the large 5KW turbine) the use case for these is generally intended to be small deployments in remote areas where you can't (or shouldn't) have all that infrastructure buildup, such as the case of the concrete snail-shaped outlet. Case in point, the manufacturer primarily sends off-grid inverters, but if requested can certainly send the grid-tie capable ones. Additionally, the SETUR-L may have a low head requirement of only 1 meter, but it still requires 650 liters/second (170ish gallons/second) of water flow rate for nominal operation. With that kind of volume, the difference made by a couple of steel screens would 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑦 be marginal. (references: P.8 of SETUR-L user's manual, Rev. 5L-B)
There are some wind power generation ideas that involve using the wind to “wiggle” a piezoelectric material. You could do the same thing with water. So basically underwater “flags,” where the undulation of the flexible surface generates electricity. Seems like it would be pretty fish safe.
Or you could rectify microwaves to power a magnetostrictive transducer to produce ultrasonic waves to stress piezoelectric materials Eg. Quartz or materials made from Zirconium ions 🎉
@@marilynlucas5128 I’m not too proud to admit I had to look up those words. Rectifying antennas and magnetostrictive transducers sound like interesting technologies. Where would we be getting the microwave radiation though? If we’re using the rectifying antennas to harvest energy from sunlight, isn’t the energy content of the microwave portion of sunlight pretty small? If someone manages to get rectifying antennas working for the infrared or, better yet, visible part of the spectrum, that’d be pretty cool though. And is there a way to power magnetostrictive transducers without electricity? Because, if we’ve already got electricity, I don’t see why we’re converting it to mechanical force just to convert it back to electrical energy with piezoelectrics. Or maybe I’ve just completely misunderstood your idea.
In your cup example, the ball never gets too close to the sides of the cup, making it "fish-safe". In the ACTUAL designs, the ball is intended to get very close to the walls, with one example actually narrowing the tunnel at the ball to get it closer. (which probably improves efficiency?) That we would call a "fish-crusher". And with how fast it's revolving around, there's no sneaking around it. I think, generally speaking, the more "fish-safe" a turbine gets, the less efficient it becomes. Though like you said, if it needs to be safe and isn't, the efficiency is ZERO, totally agree.
Nah. Manufacturer makes it clear that you're supposed to put a protective grate/screen solution in front of the turbine. (Not just for fish, but other debris as well.) a couple layers of painted expanded steel seems to be the favorite. If a fish got into it, the force of accelerated water would push the fish into the rotor/confusor (which can be adjusted at install, if you're serious about preventing damage to aquatic critters) and, maybe knock it a time or two, before being kicked out the back. Unless it's something like a fry, it'd most likely survive the ordeal.
@@QuakeDragon Well, if you are supposed to keep the fish out of the generator, you might aswell use a conventional model and just filter and bypass the generator with a side stream...
Safety and affordability are equally important as efficiency. If you can install many small/cheap solutions you have more redundancy and less precision required to generate power, especially nice when something fails. 👍 cool video, thanks for sharing ✌️
There is also the problem of sediment deposition. Every turbine reduces the momentum of the water which results in greater sediment deposion behind the turbine.
@@maxmustermann9587 That would be an issue in some setups for sure. 👍 Maybe several arranged laterally, maybe along a low head damn or the like would help alleviate that problem. It's worth a shot! 🤔
The turbulent turbine blades are made from a composite material and are very fish friendly as only small fish can enter the initial run to the turbine,plus only needs a minimum fall in the river,one up and running in Denver in Norfolk uk at the barrier on the great ouse 😊
Talking about fish friendly, I saw a bladed turbine that was just that, on a science program Towards 2000 or Beyond 2000 (can’t remember which side of 2000 it was). It was invented by engineering students at a university in Ireland. The reason it was fish friendly was because the blades were driven by air, not water. Basically it was a large container that filled with water from a river source (or other). As the container filled the air expelled drove the blades at the top of the container. When the container filled to just below the blades it would automatically open a release valve at the bottom. The water exiting would then draw air into the vessel further driving the blades. To keep the blades turning in the same direction their cross section was such that it looked like a diamond lying horizontally, with the two sides at one end being much shorter than the sides at the other end - hope that makes sense. The water source would, of necessity, need a drop in levels in line with the top and bottom of the container.
I've designed a lot of off-grid solar for both domestic and third-world countries. You aren't accounting for it correctly. A 5 kW turbine running fully loaded 24/7 is producing 120 kWh of energy per day. The solar panels required to gather that much energy, assuming you could count on 4 hours a day of equivalent 1 kW/m² insolation (a 30°-40° latitude annual average-ish value, depending on local weather patterns), would require 30,000 Wp (watts of panel). If you added batteries to store the energy, depending on the autonomy time (how long you can run on batteries with heavy overcast conditions that kill the sun) appropriate for your local weather patterns, your batteries could easily cost you twice what the panels do. So your turbine capital expense actually looks pretty good.
What is unsafe for fish in more traditional turbines are not the blades themselves but the sudden pressure change. Fish have this buoyancy bladder inside - if you put them suddenly in a much higher/lower pressure the bladder gets ripped. Fish-safe turbines aim at extending the distance over which pressure changes. As other have pointed out - fish would get crushed in this one. Although interesting idea in general!
Why not just generate the electricity directly using magnets embedded in the walls of the ball and its surrounding housing? That way you could eliminate the need to connect a shaft to the ball, and the need to connect that shaft to a conventional generator.
That's interesting. I wonder if I could 3d print a tiny version of that as a proof of concept. Would the whole thing being underwater not present a problem?
What I like about your channel is that instead of just breathlessly reporting whatever the company's press release says, you look deeper to see if the claims hold up in real-world scenarios. Keep up the good work!
putting fins on the bottom of the ball would be, in effect, creating some kind of turbine, so it may negate some of the advantages of a "turbineless" setup
There has been a recent development in the UK with pumped storage with a low height differential, they are using a fluid much heavier than water to make up for the lack of height
I really like your videos because they are very interesting, informative, and you don't just talk about the subject, you go more in depth to show the differences between more options that are out there. Besides, you are informative, easy to listen to, intelligent and you cover intelligent designs that one may not have even thought of. And you throw in The Simpsons at the right time, lol!!! Thank you!!! 🙂
An aspect of this type of smaller power generation machinery, that isn't often discussed, is its impact on large grid stability. When grid power is discussed, it is usually only in terms of total supply and total demand. Rarely is transmission and distribution discussed. Anyone who has lived in an area with regular rolling blackouts is experiencing transmission/ distribution problems, usually not an actual supply problem. Even if their net supply is insufficient to completely carry the local grid, these local power stations take load off of the transmission grid. Every watt that doesn't have to come here, can go somewhere else. Even with totals below 10%, local power generation is worthwhile for the big picture, as well as the small picture.
I really don't know modern technology of grid control systems so I always wonder how electricity distributors controlling those "small power stations". I imagine it's not impossible to implement some sort of central control system for the grid, with many small suppliers, because as matter of the fact electricity companies buying electricity from small supplier even in my country. But I imagine it's better to use those small power station locally rather than sending it to the grid. Especially, hydro station is very easy to control because all the thing you have to do is close the valve to reduce the amount of electricity produced by the generator. I understand modern trend of "clean energy" is more like, selling electricity to the distributor but It feels like a bit off to me. Why they don't consume the electricity where it produced rather than sending into the grid?? Maybe I just don't understand how these system works but now we have a lot of way to produce electricity suits to the location we're living in. So for example, if we're living by the river we can install small hydro turbines or if we're living in the desert we can use solar panels (in this case we definitely need battery but I really don't know how frequently we need to replace batteries...considering the battery of my phone become incapable of storing electricity for five years or so, it's not long lived as we expect it to be I'm afraid) and consume the electricity within local area rather than sending it to the grid. And only when our small generator can not fulfill the demand of our area we can buy shortage from major supplier through the gird. I think it's more simpler than constructing "integrated grid system" or something (because basically that what electricity distributors are doing now, right?). Or actually modern grid systems are working in that way?? As you said in your comment I really can not find these information anywhere on the internet. After all we all have substation for the area we're living in. So All the thing we have to do "plug in" our generator at that location and consume and feed the electricity whenever our generator can not fill the demand of our local area. It seems like somehow easier and better...well, this is my amateur's intuition so probably I'm missing some thing, or I just don't know modern distribution system actually capable of it. Anyway, It's always mystery to me, how modern grids are distributing electricity from various generator scattered all over the place? Is that really cost efficient?
@@付和雷同-j5b I think you understand both the technology and challenges better than you think. The part you leave out is political, where politicians will force or subsidize things that aren't effective, simultaneously blocking others from doing things that are effective. Remember, even in countries that claim otherwise, the electric grid is always 100% controlled by politicians- not engineers.
@@付和雷同-j5b In TL:DR form, you have large energy producers and adjustment power producers. Small hydro, solar etc falls into larger energy production bracket, where its drop in the bucket in comparison when rest put out hundreds of megawatts. Even if it was readily available all around, power needs in certain area like city can easily overwhelm even larger producer if lines outside are cut witch balance the use and production, causing those with in most likely run out of frequency and emergency cut out from grid, since just 0.5hertz can destroy equipment and that will be very VERY expensive bill who ever fucked up. More complex the machine is, more sensitive it is frequency changes, unless it was designed to work in different ranges but thats beside the point and each item design. Since you cant throttle nuclear power plant up and down fast, there are rapidly responding powerplants that are adjustment power producers, who can turn the whole plant off and on again in seconds to minutes. This is when grid is fully working. Due next question of where the power is cheapest and most practical to produce for instance cost of hauling the fuel around, plants are setup all over the place where its best suited and due the sizes and type of plants electricity might need to be moved long distances. When grid is damaged, larger area is cut out from power, then brought back in steps to locate where the damage is witch requires the adjustment power. During large storm many such events happen and adjusting power plants need to response in over production or under production, so frequency stays with in set standards. If it does not, that mean in worst case scenario ether totally fucked up electronics if fail safes fail, or most likely almost just as bad result: frequency collapse, where all plants emergency cut off from grid and whole country can go dark. Getting grid up from this situation is absolute fucking nightmare, witch is hella expensive and should be avoided in all costs. "Why they don't consume the electricity where it produced rather than sending into the grid??" Simple. Cost of production vs whats paid for it. You recall the world ending electricity prices in Europe? Well cause of this simple thing, Sweden and Norway produced shit ton of cheap energy since their productions costs were rather low. This power then was sold to Finland... witch sold all the excess and further sold it to Estonia, who sold it further. Top of that Finnish people were plead to save all the power they can for sake of the "environment" and that enough power would be available to everyone...all the saved witch was sold to Estonia for great profits who most likely did same thing. Just goes to show how we are scammed, with climate crisis etc bullshit. For small production its nice little extra but at best they can produce maybe a megawatt or two that gets lost to total production and mostly only useful to person who produces it. For instance my neighbor has top of the line larger solar setup. On winter his on mostly taking all the power from grid and summer producing some into the grid while producing most of his power least during the day... or starts the diesel generator when power price is high and sells this "green solar energy" to grid. This is just small scale how green energy scam is done by larger companies. This is just the bits i have learned from powerplants head electrician, but the whole topic is much much more complicated when we go from power production to systems in thems selfs globally and god damn politics and scams, but simply said yes it would be beneficial to have small scale power production, say macro nuclear reactors and utilize resources available, but micro hydro, etc if its not able to produce extra top of your own usage, is not really that practical in grid scale even if there was enough land and people installing these setups. Specially when you look into cities that consume most of that energy.
Great overview. I question if it is safer than safe bladed designs considering the possibility of crushed by the ball as it approaches the wall of the chamber.
Sometime in the 90's I attended a "Fieldays" event in the Waikato (NZ) which showcased new inventions, technology, equipment etc. On display and for sale was a submersible generator which when dropped into a water flow provided Ac power. Instead of your ping pong ball concept, the ball was a neodymium magnet, free spinning inside a housing to generate the current. The ball (rotor) wasn't attached to a shaft. I still have the advertising paperwork, but sadly, didn't buy one of the units and have never seen them elsewhere. Was the concept bought and shelved? Who would know?
I think, to kickstart the vortex, the previous design (snail shape) or inlets like the ones in the vortex fire jet stove are better. And then the axis can be made more static and not wobbling around.
As with all hydro systems, regardless of the method employed, you’re extracting energy from the river which reduces the silt carrying capacity of the flow, so you immediately get silting up of the river.
There is so much human or natural intervention that in any case there will be more or less of it in an area at one time or another. One more obviously will have an effect, but with our current weather conditions it is or all or nothing from one day to another. There was a story about the Nile and the appearance of animal species at its exit which would be due to dams. But scientifically it is very debated and it is directly related to what you are talking about
@@paulabuchanan8375 as if dredging uses no energy. You can't extract more energy from a system than you'd have to use to put that system back in the original state, ever. If you could, that would be a perpetual motion machine. That is why we use coal, oil, nuclear power and solar power - those are non-renewable but we don't try to renew them, we just use them and they are gone. Sun is also non-renewable but it's just so HUGE we can't even dream of using it up in our lifetimes, so in principle it IS a finite resource.
Incorporate a gravity filter into the system and largely automate the removal might work. i.e. use physics to get the silt to drop in a convenient location for removal.
1 Problem, the vortex doesn't generate enough torque to rotate a generator to produce power from. What looks good in theory doesn't usually transmit into practical cost effective uses.
This might just be a misnomer from branding it as "Vortex hydrokinetics". In a typical turbine setup you'd be absolutely correct. In this case the vortex isn't directly driving the turbine. The offset hollow rotator and confusor are the magic elements that make this unstable rotation kick out enough torque. There may also be some gearing involved with the magnetic coupler (mfgr isn't clear on that.) That said, while the water velocity/head requirement is super low at 4 m/s, it still requires 650 liters/second (170-ish gallons/second) of water flow rate for the 5KW turbine to operate nominally. (Reference page 8 of the SETUR-L owner's manual.) So, a moderately sized river is still required. :\
literally what I thought watching this. Hydro turbines have wicket gates controlled by a governor which alters the flow of water through the turbine to keep the RPM constant, and makes adjustments as the LOAD requirements change. I don't see how this "bladeless" turbine is going to be practical, as it would need to be able to compensate very quickly. If not, it these bladeless turbine will never be commissioned and approved for connection to any power grids.
@@QuakeDragon PE=mgh. so...im getting 2,340,000L/hr. at 4M, gives me a PE of 25KWh. KE, at point of impact, or in this case, turbine blade... 25KWh, at 8.8m/s... a this point i couldnt be bothered going further... have to start guessing diameters and distances moved after impact and thats all a bit of a grey area here... other than... if you dont let the water flow at all... no work is done. block a hose at the end... no movement. no work. if the water flows freely, at full velocity with no restriction... no work is done. let the hose wave wildly. it has almost no mass to counteract the reaction of water exiting the nozzle. no work is done. strap it to a weight so it moves the weight at half the velocity, and oh my... work is done... the maximum amount of work that can be performed, the largest mass/weight that can be moved at the highest velocity by the energy contained in that moving fluid with momentum. that is... half the energy of the fluid in motion cannot be extracted. if you extract all of it, water doesnt FLOW anymore. at best, you get 12.5KWh from the 650L/s at 4M. then the generator combo? well... that all gets into what load the generator is working into, but again... same applies... 50/50. at best, you get 6.25KWh at the load powered by the generator powered by the turbine. now we delve into teh electrical equivalent of the same principle... "jacobs law"... once the load is the same resistance as the generator or source, thats it... half the energy in the generator, half in the load. any overload resistance either draws more current, at a lower potential, or draws less current at a higher potential... 50/50 is the point of maximum efficiency... half in the load, half in the generator... the irony of these "efficiency ratings"? you can only EVER extract HALF the energy. that is "100% efficiency". again...convert PE to KE, the fluid is traveling at max velocity, with no restriction, performing no work. convert KE to PE, there is ZERO velocity, and again... zero work done. the maximum amount of work one can extract is when the fluid is impeded to half its velocity as it transfers momentum to another object.
I submit that "vortexes" is incorrect; it may be in common use by people who don't know better, but it's clear that with this sort of word (and it's origin) it should be vortices, like vertex -> vertices, matrix -> matrices, codex -> codices, dominatrix -> dominatrices, index -> indices.
I’ve got a crazy idea. Rig it up so you have a small reservoir that repeatedly fills and empties. Either have gates upstream and downstream that you alternate opening and closing or build a giant bell siphon. Either way, the reservoir has floats in it that rise and fall with the water level. Turn the mechanical motion of those floats into electricity.
There are similar systems being tested based on buoyancy in seawater, to make use of the waves. And there also "sea buoys batteries" being studied. Basically, you use cheap electricity to reel the buoys to the bottom of the sea, and release them to recover (part of) the energy. If you have a dam which regularly floods and empties (thinking on the Panama channel and the like) you could reel the buoy when the water is low at almost no cost (since there would be no pulling) and then release it when you fill the dam. I'd say that's pretty solid for being based on a gas filled container in a liquid :p
If a fish can be caught between the ball and the wall of the turbine, it's not really fish safe. A bladed turbine can be safer if it there is no risk of hitting the leading edge of a blade. Hitting the side of a blade is not an issue as long as the blade is not moving too quickly.
Pressure differences kill fishes as well like peoples. There's could be many bars different before and after turbine or blades. So just keep fishes away from it. Much realistic way.
@@alanhat5252 I don't believe this is completely accurate. The blades have a flow rate that they are optimal for, it's a curve that peaks and then drops off. You don't want to design a blade that is optimised for a flow rate that can't be achieved given the source of that flow. That would be inherently inefficient. This is largely due to turbulence caused by the flow not being parallel to the surface causing flow seperation at non optimal flow rates. This should be much less of a factor in Tesla turbines and this ball turbine, as in theory the flows are designed to be parallel to the surfaces, so to remain laminar in nature. The blades do however get a mechanical torque advantage, but it's a trade off with the inefficiencies caused by flow seperation at non optimal flow rates. Tesla turbines tend to be more efficient at low flow rates, although arguably that's just because blades are typically design for efficiency at more typical flow rates I believe.
Just a suggestion: golden ratio or Fibonacci number. The snail like shape produces most efficient spiral for vortex. Amazing, so simple, yet so effective! Simple, elegance
Looks like some rock crushers you see in gravel quarries. Those see a ton of wear and tera (duh they are crushing rocks) but with the same motion it makes me curious what kind of operational wear and tear you can expect from these hydro turbines. Long-term costs could increase over solar if they require more frequent maintenance. Cool design, cool video, thanks for the hardwork and the upload 👍
Should replace the ball with a series of disc's. This will increase the surface area that has contact with the rotating water and increase its efficiency gaining available energy. This is similar in principal to a Tesla turbine being more effective with a number of thin discs. Integza had a recent video mentioning something similar. Seems like this could be achieved without the ball and less risk of being a grinder by using the exterior walls as the moving surface instead. So snail shell shape to redirect to a rotational force, directed onto moveable outer wall which is maximized to increase surface area as much as possible (roughness, dimples, groves etc). That rotational movement is then used as input for a generator. Flow should also have more energy in the outer regions where the wall is than in the middle with the ball I believe. Obviously technically more difficult to rotate the wall than a ball. Guessing there would likely be less wear as well.
Well done! Much appreciate presentation. Have been following/researching Turbulent for applications in New England and wish to know more on your activities, Thanks JP
I am confused about where the numbers for power generation come from in the 9 minute area. I tried watching it a few times, but still not sure where that 300,000kWh number comes from. 300,000kWh means there would need to be 60,000 hours in a year if generating at 5kW. You didn't need to get that number from the internet, just multiply number of hours in a year by 5kW. 365 days x 24 hours = 8760 hours per year. X 5 kW = 43,800kWh each if running at 100% all year. So if you use the 17% number for solar (probably still a little bit on the high side for a lot of places, averaged over the year), then that would be 7,446 kWh a year for a 5kW system. (~14.9% of 50,000 kWh) If the turbine is running at 50% over the year, then that's 21,900 kWh (14.6% of 150,000) To me it looks like your numbers are for 7 years not 1 year.
Very interesting on the micro power benefit. Was wondering about building structures for wind. The three blade turbines are mostly space over the blade sweep area, but if you could have a chimney type structure you may get generating in over 2m/s winds. In England you can have a long shed in the garden, but not a high shed (OK up to 2.5m). Probably needs louvre shutters, so still has a shed character.
Worth nothing, the geometric profile of the turbine (the curved white plastic part shown at 01:17) is clearly made after Viktor Schauberger's hyperbolic funnel. The asymmetric position of the ball perhaps favors the onset of such a vortex formation (and is here to harness the force to convert it into electrical power) but as shown by Schauberger's collected scientific works, a hyperbolic funnel automatically generates a vortex in a flowing fluid.
Had a bit of a doubt inbetween, but at the end i was convinced this channel is worth to be supported. Neutral presentation, trustworthy and meaningful conclusions - i would like this as a youtube filter.
As for fish safety? I have seen rock crushers work on a similar principle (going round the inner circumference). This mechanism at the speeds it was shown running would crush any fish trying to pass through. The low efficency makes it a no go solution.
i was thinking the same thing, the way i saw that thing violently moving looked like it would make minced meat from fishes. Frankly, the slow moving bladed version he showed that was supposed to be slow enough not to harm the fish seemed quite a bit more fish friendly, and likely has a higher efficiency.
I think for a fish safe turbine unit they could use the tesla turbine effect , just use a row of textured disks spread apart it should yield a fair amount of power output.
Good job ! This structure can be combined with a permanent water pump structure ( motionless ) that supplies water back and does not require additional water !
The water, along with the fish, is on the other side of the ball and if it’ll fit it’ll go on through with the water. I suppose you’d need to keep the bigger ones from getting in though.
It’s basically preventing any fish to enter in the first place, it’s not exactly fish safe to go through. He noted that this spinning ball funnel can be a much cheaper option?
@@stanweaver6116 The ball rotates along the outside, sure swirl and water pressure will usually move the fish ahead of the ball, but if the fish does something stupid and gets close it might just get caught and turned into paste
It's way more expensive than solar, because I would have to move to a river with access to the river first before being able to start comparing them ;-) Besides, there is a hydro power plant some miles away, where I think that I get my electricity from. So, this place is already taken. The places along the river are already taken. Along the other rivers too. But it's nice that someone says that water power is also a renewable energy source, at least as long as the sun shines and as long as this all together makes rain fall and the falling rain gets collected and flows in rivers...
Would this also work in freezing temperatures of winter? I know that rivers and streams do not freeze solid. Did you run across any studies on this matter?
To claim that it would be able to run 24/7 is a best case scenario and is obviously is not taking into account seasonal changes such as ice, or reduced stream flows in drought conditions.
I'm not a physicist so prepare yourself for a dumb question... that drive shaft attached to the ball looked clumsy, inefficient and like a single point of failure. I'm guessing that it leads up to some sort of dynamo. What if you break up the dynamo and move its coil into the ball and its magnets to around the outside of the cup ? Figuring out how to access the electric current flowing inside the ball underwater rather than in air might be a challenge but perhaps this has already been done in some form of electric motor in a boat or submarine...
Why ? The air gap must be very small between the rotor and stator as this is where the magnetic field transfers from rotor to stator. A big gap has high losses.
Nikola Tesla invented a bladeless turbine over 100 years ago. Glad to see somebody is wanting to try it again now that metalurgy has advanced. The architecture of this design is different from Tesla's design and very innovative. I look forward to seeing this tested in actual environment. Sadly, I suspect the ball may present a pinchpoint for the fish, but perhaps there is some hydr dynamic principle that would keep them away from the pinch point?
When I was quite young (about 10 years old) I noticed that if you put a ping-pong ball in the bath plug hole and leave it in a static position in the middle of the plug hole, the water flows evenly and smoothly round it. If you put the ball to one side and flick it so that it starts rotating, it continues rotating very fast (and noisly) and the rate of water flow reduces dramatically - even though at any given moment the amount of space round the side of the ball remains exactly the same as when it is statically positioned in the middle. I thought at the time it was very interesting, but didn't know what application it might have. Now I can see. I think one problem of their design though was that the ball rotated in a central tubed section and there was flow going past it in the outer tube. In my view that was likely to have been wasting energy.
Turbulent: if the water source is diverted from the main river, fish would be kept out in the fist place. Imagine dozens of these reusing the same water, over and over. Plug-in mini power distribution hubs could be placed above each turbine... Did I mention it's the SAME water. Cover it with a grate, for a walking path, with Solar panels for a covered lookout poit, or a food carts. I've been to this place, in my thoughts. In The Columbia Gorge, Washington side so it faces South. The power-path could conceivably go all the way To the ocean. Anyway, good program.
Interesting, this looks like a variation on a Tesla turbine(in that flat-ish surface interacting with liquid is making the energy transfer happen), I wonder what is the efficiency of this thing and can it be increased somehow...by adding ridges to the ping pong ball...but that would possibly already be a turbine :D
What about an externally spun top strung with copper wire within a shroud. The external ring the water swirls around spinning the top, at the Venturi point is also strung with copper wire. No direct drive to drag the spin. Effectively a magnetically and buoyancy-specifically stabilized top. Turned by the vortices draining around it. The magnetic stabilization being at an algorithmic ratio to pointed. In theory it could continue to accelerate the effect through several stacked iterations as the siphon effect accumulates.
What about designing the generator around the housing and put windings in the ball. The ball then becomes a rotor and since everything is free moving it would seem to me to minimize loss to mechanics. The electromagnets on the housing would rotate as well. The speed of the balls rotation would synch with the magnet rotation. Just a thought
This was totally new to me, one of the 3D printing guys on youtube has to make a video about these things! Build a working turbine and optimise for power output! If I was living next to a flowing river I would start building right now!
Cool share, thanks. Remember to experiment with dimpling or bumps on the surface of the hemisphere, too. Smooth versus patterned surfaces. Regards. D.P. Henderson, NV, USA
No joke: paid for three of these SETUR-L turbines at the beginning of 2022. They still have not arrived. When they said it's not available, they weren't kidding.
Due to lightweight steel construction, old fashioned water wheels had reached 90% efficiency when steam came along. Coal was cheap and (like electric cars) water wheels were derided as old hat and not sexy, so into history’s bin they went. Time to revive these pleasant, low-tech, nature friendly devices.
Blade free, critter safe, my mind popped up, a can inside the bigger one, spiral etched or bio- mimic ridged inside to tuna scale hydro slip, with hydroelectric collection, rigidity, etc, all in the stationary outside cylinder. Pop out moving part replaceable. Eh? No ball, no? Remember, low output preferred over no output, often! Why the ball?
What I find very scary is how few people in the comments have failed to see the blinding obvious, that fish just get crushed instead of chopped. People are just so gullible! Yes your highness your new birthday suit is so exquisite!!!!
0:41 I was relieved to see an actual human being speaking. You have exactly the same accent as the robotic voice in those videos that tell you how to heat your home with an old tanning lamp, or how to cure cancer with a doorbell transformer. It was a very interesting video nonetheless. Thanks for posting.
All hydropower plants have enormously high construction costs relative to their yield. The costs for small hydropower are therefore usually 15 to 25 cent/kWh. And hydropower plants have to be cleaned of branches, rubbish etc. every day. With solar modules, on the other hand, you can reliably (except the winter) generate green electricity for 25 years at approx. 3-10 cent/kWh! Hydropower turbines are therefore only worthwhile if you need to be self-sufficient from the grid.
If you could just chuck one of these into the nearest river and start getting some kind of power from it, that would be pretty wild. Water sources are public property, so anyone can be allowed to use it how they want. (and the local river has a VERY strong current.)
I do solar, you gotta introduce me to these 5kW solar systems at 17% efficiency that produce 50,000kWh in a year because that'd be easy to sell for $5000. This makes me skeptical of the math but you're right on the money with your concepts. Thanks for the video!
I agree with your disbelief regarding the figures presented. Even if some high-end solar PV are around 21% efficient, getting 50,000kWh in a year would be impossible even in the most ideal conditions. He needs to reappraise his figures.
7:45 this is a point I try to communicate in green tech discussions that some folk seem to disregard. if you can deploy energy storage or generation in a place, then you'll obviously want the most effecient one possible. but if you CAN'T deploy that one, then something is better than nothing. Further, in the case of secondary generation and storage, such as for waste heat, you can often run lower-efficiency systems off of the 'leftovers' of high-efficiency systems. (such as running an stirling hot-air engine off of the waste heat from a steam system) also, I find that the Point of Diminishing Returns is often miscalculated, as some low-efficiency tech, fueled by High-Efficiency techs' leftovers or wastes, can operate continuously, with little-to-no maintenance, for decades, or even CENTURIES. but because the ROI isn't large enough _in the short term_ they dismiss them as pointless... this is VERY frustrating, as it is a real barrier to Global Carbon Neutrality and Fossil Fuel Independence when we "Allow Perfect to be the Enemy of Good", and obsess over finding Direct-Analog, _singular_ solutions...
Damn! These guys are actually headquartered very close to me and I recently researched them because I was interested in what technology they used. Cool coincidence that you made a video too.
The more fin-like the "roughness" is the higher the efficiency - the turbine has the highest and this smooth ball the lowest i.e. none. I bet that connecting this contraption to an actual generator and load will prove abysmal efficiency of this setup.
A very interesting turbine, but, as other commenters have mentioned, it doesn't seem to scale up and retain the "fish safe" feature. Also, what is to prevent it from becoming clogged with weeds? I'm thinking that there might be a better solution for making a turbine fish safe. In the first place, make it generate "noise" that repels the fish. Any fisherman can tell you that fish spook easily. Now add to that something that "wastes" some of the rotational force of that turbine to "wash" the fish away from the inlet. I won't attempt to design such a device, but imagine it as a porous paddle wheel moving slowly such that it pushes fish sideways and away from the entry without diverting as much of the water. As to initiating the vortex, any spiral asymmetry could do that. Alternatively, the attached generator could be used as a motor, powered from a battery, to initiate the rotation. This might suffice to eliminate the need to re-route the fish, as the ball could be rigidly centered in the apparatus, or at least centered sufficiently so as to leave sufficient room for fish between the ball and the cone at all times.
From what i get it looks fish-safe when the ball is centered in the cylinder but just to add a detail... if the ball's surface was less smooth so water can have some slight grip .. the turbine might be a little more powerful generating a little more energy..... Just thinking out loud. Thanks for sharing this.
I suspect that a rough surface,or ridges would improve the ball's rotation.(k.i.s.s.)always look for "simple"tweaks first. Dam! There must be an equally simple way to create a weir and a chute to increase flow in one location and still allow fish to travel safely between levels.(pun) But,seriously. Make a weir. construct a chute diagonally across the weir face.( simply place a tethered ball at the bottom and another at the top. (There will be an eddy in each location for you to harvest energy from,even when the river is not in SPATE)
I'm not clear on the financial comparison between solar and turbine. It seems the cost of mounting solar would be much less than the cost of building/maintaining a dam, and that was not included.
Small rivers are less consistent and maintenance will further be an issue. In Switzerland there was a company with a similar approach they called "Wasserwirbelkraftwerk" and they went bankrupt.
Probably the most fish-friendly solution would be to channel the water into a bucket, which then becomes heavy and is pullled down by gravity on a bucket chain. Of course, that requires a fair head of water, and would prevent fish from getting upstream - so *_they_* might not find it very friendly.
Small hydro is fascinating. Some day I would love to live out in a more rural area and take advantage of something along these lines. But my biggest fear isn't for fish, it is that leaves and debris would provide me with a full time job cleaning the thing lol. I also wonder about the lack of storage need with something like this. For a single home, or even a small compound or rural business, you are going to have peaks and draws of demand. If you are installing a generator around your peak power needs, then you are going to waste a lot of unused power from a massively overbuilt system. Plus, no system has 100% up time. You need at least some storage to provide for regular maintenance or damage/repairs. So if you need storage anyways, then you may as well buy a smaller unit... Or have something massive to shunt excess power into like heat storage or a crypto farm or something lol.
You probably know this already. The Coreolis force is what makes water rotate as it goes down the plughole. In the Southern hemisphere it rotated the other way. Water down a plughole doesn't need to be stirred first. It's a small force.
Real time experience around Melbourne Australia gives PV = 3 times watt value every 24 hours = to 12.5% efficiency. That is summer and winter over about 11 years by now. Of cause it decreases over time as the PV's weakens but fairly accurate over the first 4 years of an installation. I have multiple installations.
There was a promising design with a wave, travelling between two diaphragms. Low pressure, and no head to speak of, just needing to be submerged in the flow. Replicating water's pathways, I would think it's quite fish-safe.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching! Don't forget, the first 100 people to use code ZIROTH at the link below will get 60% off of Incogni: incogni.com/ziroth !
Just realised I put some footage of a bigger turbines (that uses the same method of generation) which look pretty deadly and didnt give context - my thought was the smaller/lighter ones would not crush the fish! My bad for not being clear with this!
Interesting! Some thoughts:
1. The carbon footprint, lifespan, and recyclability of the two technologies would also have to be taken into account, and solar panels are... problematic... in all three regards.
2. Solar panels have to have a sturdy foundation, are fairly fragile, and require constant cleaning. This looks like it only requires an anchor and some form of grate to protect it from debris.
3. The main reason solar panels cost so little in comparison is because of their *HUGE* sales volume. This new turbine isn't able to enjoy that. ...yet.
Cheers!
I am not sure if I understood why this is called bladeless when the ball/half hemisphere is clearly the blade.
Furthermore, why is it any different to one with a blades when it comes to wildlife? On the face of it, it looks even less safe to the fish than the ones with blades.
I am not pretending to fully understand the system but the ones using a "blade" are presummbly dangerous to the fish because the body of the fish could come into contact with a fast running "blade". If that is the case then the same thing applies to the "ball"/"semisphere", doesn't it?
The only way round this problem is to rotate the ball tangential to the flow of water, i.e. the rotation not being directly in the path of the flow. But that doesn't match your demonstration or the diagram.
May be that is the reason for the low of eiffiency but then 55% seems a lot for such an arrangement and I am not convinced by the idea that the vortex will carry on independently once started. of course how long it will carry on must be dependent of the ratio of the flow rate and the size of the outflow assuming there is zero potential energy due to gravity.
If the rotating mass is as shown is direct in the path of the flow it needs to be large enough for the fish to get through and the larger the fish the more probablity of it getting squeezed beteen the rotating mass and the sides of container. Unless there is another mechanism to prevent the fish entering the system that I would imagine can easily be achieved using a mesh that lets the water through but not the fish.
So, where it the problem that was supposed to be solved by this system?
I can understand that the mesh needs to be easily permeable to water which unless we are talking about the tinyest fish and other aquatic larva it is not going to be problem given that nature has already seen to that problem though the ratio of eggs to those that survive long enough to procreate.
Besides, there is always going to be the question of maintenace to clear the flow form dead vegitation and river sediments that will very much depend on the environment outside the system. So, the idea of what gets into the system falls within the parameters the maintenace anyway.
So, can you please tell me what I am missing here?
To be honest in the end none of these system are viable because they all depent on the speifics of the environment. Rivers are no where at steady as you present them to be. The flow rate changes all the time so you really need custom design for each case that given the changing climate is going to be oscilating between extremes. Riverbeds can go from being bone dry to sources of floods. So the whole premise is just wrong.
that's a ready made fishcake maker lol
@@KeithOlson ⚠️ God has said in the Quran:
🔵 { O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous - ( 2:21 )
🔴 [He] who made for you the earth a bed [spread out] and the sky a ceiling and sent down from the sky, rain and brought forth thereby fruits as provision for you. So do not attribute to Allah equals while you know [that there is nothing similar to Him]. ( 2:22 )
🔵 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. ( 2:23 )
🔴 But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.( 2:24 )
🔵 And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, "This is what we were provided with before." And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally. ( 2:25 )
⚠️ Quran
9:45
I feel the fish will be crushed between the ball and sidewall like a mortar and pestle.
Fish paste
Definitely, I put some footage of a bigger turbines (that uses the same method of generation) which look pretty deadly - my thought was the smaller/lighter ones would not crush the fish! My bad for not being clear with this! Thanks for the comment :D
Exactly what I was thinking 👍
A larger, slower moving, greater resistance, rounded edged blade, would be safer for aquatic life. The other model shown looked superior and had better numbers.
If this design incorporated the snail shell vortex producing lead in water, the spinning ball could be smaller, remain in the centre and allow aquatic life to swim around it, providing there is space between the ball and walls.
Fish and Chips
Crushed, but not sliced. Greener death 😁
There are many channels on youtube that talk about new scientific concepts but never actually get to the point or setting it into context of real world application. They talk alot but don't say anything useful. First i thought you would be one of them but i am happy to see that you are actually getting to the bottom of those concepts.
AS an off grid low header, I made many experimental turbines and learned a lot. Efficiency can be up to 70% even with small 100 watt units at 3 feet of head. Self cleaning screens keep fish and debris out. All needs to be stainless steel, dissolved atmospheric CO2 attacks galv and concrete if turbulent. Critical aspect is not having fixed alternator speed, allow the system to self tune to the load. Switchmode electronic control.
Have you used power to run a bitcoin miner yet sir? Please help us bring this technology to the world
What generator would you recommend for max efficiency for your buck?
@@advantaproductionswhy would he waste his power mining shitcoin
Thanks for the video. Fascinating. As a keen fisherman I can relate to the desire for turbines that don't mince the fish.
That said, looking at the footage you have shown here it looks like any hapless fish that found themselves going through one of these would run the risk of being crushed to paste where the "ball" meets the wall.
Love your work. Cheers.
Yeah, it would be better to add safety net to prevent fishes wandering into the devices.
The net need to be replaced at regular interval tho, and the net do reduces power generated by the 'ball'.
..well thay do already exist...thay are called hydro electric power dams...
...and this guys have invented a very poor verision of a tesla turbine....
..wouldent surprice me if thay maned to hype it and get some investments at wich point that suddenly dissapear...
req investors that dont know anything about physics ... its a pipedream...litterally...
Nah. Manufacturer makes it clear that you're supposed to put a protective grate/screen solution in front of the turbine. (Not just for fish, but other debris as well.) a couple layers of painted expanded steel seems to be the favorite.
@@QuakeDragon Good point. I can't help wondering, though, if the fish can't get through then wouldn't you just go back to the more traditional turbine with double the efficiency?
@@GarthClarkson Yes, that is absolutely valid. For the SETUR-L (the large 5KW turbine) the use case for these is generally intended to be small deployments in remote areas where you can't (or shouldn't) have all that infrastructure buildup, such as the case of the concrete snail-shaped outlet. Case in point, the manufacturer primarily sends off-grid inverters, but if requested can certainly send the grid-tie capable ones. Additionally, the SETUR-L may have a low head requirement of only 1 meter, but it still requires 650 liters/second (170ish gallons/second) of water flow rate for nominal operation. With that kind of volume, the difference made by a couple of steel screens would 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑦 be marginal. (references: P.8 of SETUR-L user's manual, Rev. 5L-B)
There are some wind power generation ideas that involve using the wind to “wiggle” a piezoelectric material. You could do the same thing with water. So basically underwater “flags,” where the undulation of the flexible surface generates electricity. Seems like it would be pretty fish safe.
yes but prone to barnacles, weed etc
Or you could rectify microwaves to power a magnetostrictive transducer to produce ultrasonic waves to stress piezoelectric materials Eg. Quartz or materials made from Zirconium ions 🎉
Doesn't sound very scaleable
@@marilynlucas5128 I’m not too proud to admit I had to look up those words. Rectifying antennas and magnetostrictive transducers sound like interesting technologies. Where would we be getting the microwave radiation though? If we’re using the rectifying antennas to harvest energy from sunlight, isn’t the energy content of the microwave portion of sunlight pretty small? If someone manages to get rectifying antennas working for the infrared or, better yet, visible part of the spectrum, that’d be pretty cool though. And is there a way to power magnetostrictive transducers without electricity? Because, if we’ve already got electricity, I don’t see why we’re converting it to mechanical force just to convert it back to electrical energy with piezoelectrics. Or maybe I’ve just completely misunderstood your idea.
So instead of instantly killing the fish, the flags will just b*tch slap them really hard?
In your cup example, the ball never gets too close to the sides of the cup, making it "fish-safe". In the ACTUAL designs, the ball is intended to get very close to the walls, with one example actually narrowing the tunnel at the ball to get it closer. (which probably improves efficiency?) That we would call a "fish-crusher". And with how fast it's revolving around, there's no sneaking around it.
I think, generally speaking, the more "fish-safe" a turbine gets, the less efficient it becomes. Though like you said, if it needs to be safe and isn't, the efficiency is ZERO, totally agree.
Nah. Manufacturer makes it clear that you're supposed to put a protective grate/screen solution in front of the turbine. (Not just for fish, but other debris as well.) a couple layers of painted expanded steel seems to be the favorite. If a fish got into it, the force of accelerated water would push the fish into the rotor/confusor (which can be adjusted at install, if you're serious about preventing damage to aquatic critters) and, maybe knock it a time or two, before being kicked out the back. Unless it's something like a fry, it'd most likely survive the ordeal.
Your are right! Basically, the are always a cost of what you get
even if it does not touch the wall the speed these turbines spin at means there is enough blunt force to do damage.
@@QuakeDragon Well, if you are supposed to keep the fish out of the generator, you might aswell use a conventional model and just filter and bypass the generator with a side stream...
In theory the ball will never touch the wall because of the _bernouli effect_
Safety and affordability are equally important as efficiency. If you can install many small/cheap solutions you have more redundancy and less precision required to generate power, especially nice when something fails. 👍 cool video, thanks for sharing ✌️
There is also the problem of sediment deposition.
Every turbine reduces the momentum of the water which results in greater sediment deposion behind the turbine.
@@maxmustermann9587 That would be an issue in some setups for sure. 👍 Maybe several arranged laterally, maybe along a low head damn or the like would help alleviate that problem. It's worth a shot! 🤔
The turbulent turbine blades are made from a composite material and are very fish friendly as only small fish can enter the initial run to the turbine,plus only needs a minimum fall in the river,one up and running in Denver in Norfolk uk at the barrier on the great ouse 😊
Talking about fish friendly, I saw a bladed turbine that was just that, on a science program Towards 2000 or Beyond 2000 (can’t remember which side of 2000 it was).
It was invented by engineering students at a university in Ireland.
The reason it was fish friendly was because the blades were driven by air, not water.
Basically it was a large container that filled with water from a river source (or other).
As the container filled the air expelled drove the blades at the top of the container.
When the container filled to just below the blades it would automatically open a release valve at the bottom. The water exiting would then draw air into the vessel further driving the blades.
To keep the blades turning in the same direction their cross section was such that it looked like a diamond lying horizontally, with the two sides at one end being much shorter than the sides at the other end - hope that makes sense.
The water source would, of necessity, need a drop in levels in line with the top and bottom of the container.
I remember the Beyond 2000 shows. They had very interesting stuff.
Sounds like a tide generator.
I've designed a lot of off-grid solar for both domestic and third-world countries. You aren't accounting for it correctly. A 5 kW turbine running fully loaded 24/7 is producing 120 kWh of energy per day. The solar panels required to gather that much energy, assuming you could count on 4 hours a day of equivalent 1 kW/m² insolation (a 30°-40° latitude annual average-ish value, depending on local weather patterns), would require 30,000 Wp (watts of panel). If you added batteries to store the energy, depending on the autonomy time (how long you can run on batteries with heavy overcast conditions that kill the sun) appropriate for your local weather patterns, your batteries could easily cost you twice what the panels do. So your turbine capital expense actually looks pretty good.
What is unsafe for fish in more traditional turbines are not the blades themselves but the sudden pressure change. Fish have this buoyancy bladder inside - if you put them suddenly in a much higher/lower pressure the bladder gets ripped. Fish-safe turbines aim at extending the distance over which pressure changes.
As other have pointed out - fish would get crushed in this one. Although interesting idea in general!
Why not just generate the electricity directly using magnets embedded in the walls of the ball and its surrounding housing? That way you could eliminate the need to connect a shaft to the ball, and the need to connect that shaft to a conventional generator.
This is the best and most original comment I've seen under this video so far.
That is kind of an interesting idea. Make the turbine into a generator itself instead of connecting it to one with a shaft.
That's interesting. I wonder if I could 3d print a tiny version of that as a proof of concept. Would the whole thing being underwater not present a problem?
then how do you control its rotation? you will only rely on the resonance, how do you prevent it hitting the wall and self destruct itself
What I like about your channel is that instead of just breathlessly reporting whatever the company's press release says, you look deeper to see if the claims hold up in real-world scenarios. Keep up the good work!
putting fins on the bottom of the ball would be, in effect, creating some kind of turbine, so it may negate some of the advantages of a "turbineless" setup
This is still a turbine as it translates the water flow into rotational energy. So more accurate to say bladeless instead of turbineless.
There has been a recent development in the UK with pumped storage with a low height differential, they are using a fluid much heavier than water to make up for the lack of height
I really like your videos because they are very interesting, informative, and you don't just talk about the subject, you go more in depth to show the differences between more options that are out there. Besides, you are informative, easy to listen to, intelligent and you cover intelligent designs that one may not have even thought of. And you throw in The Simpsons at the right time, lol!!! Thank you!!! 🙂
2:41 The question you SHOULD be asking is the actual true efficiency of such a device compared to other types of turbines.
no kidding. Like we wanted truth and not distal waste.
An aspect of this type of smaller power generation machinery, that isn't often discussed, is its impact on large grid stability.
When grid power is discussed, it is usually only in terms of total supply and total demand. Rarely is transmission and distribution discussed.
Anyone who has lived in an area with regular rolling blackouts is experiencing transmission/ distribution problems, usually not an actual supply problem.
Even if their net supply is insufficient to completely carry the local grid, these local power stations take load off of the transmission grid. Every watt that doesn't have to come here, can go somewhere else. Even with totals below 10%, local power generation is worthwhile for the big picture, as well as the small picture.
I really don't know modern technology of grid control systems so I always wonder how electricity distributors controlling those "small power stations". I imagine it's not impossible to implement some sort of central control system for the grid, with many small suppliers, because as matter of the fact electricity companies buying electricity from small supplier even in my country. But I imagine it's better to use those small power station locally rather than sending it to the grid. Especially, hydro station is very easy to control because all the thing you have to do is close the valve to reduce the amount of electricity produced by the generator. I understand modern trend of "clean energy" is more like, selling electricity to the distributor but It feels like a bit off to me. Why they don't consume the electricity where it produced rather than sending into the grid?? Maybe I just don't understand how these system works but now we have a lot of way to produce electricity suits to the location we're living in. So for example, if we're living by the river we can install small hydro turbines or if we're living in the desert we can use solar panels (in this case we definitely need battery but I really don't know how frequently we need to replace batteries...considering the battery of my phone become incapable of storing electricity for five years or so, it's not long lived as we expect it to be I'm afraid) and consume the electricity within local area rather than sending it to the grid. And only when our small generator can not fulfill the demand of our area we can buy shortage from major supplier through the gird. I think it's more simpler than constructing "integrated grid system" or something (because basically that what electricity distributors are doing now, right?). Or actually modern grid systems are working in that way?? As you said in your comment I really can not find these information anywhere on the internet. After all we all have substation for the area we're living in. So All the thing we have to do "plug in" our generator at that location and consume and feed the electricity whenever our generator can not fill the demand of our local area. It seems like somehow easier and better...well, this is my amateur's intuition so probably I'm missing some thing, or I just don't know modern distribution system actually capable of it. Anyway, It's always mystery to me, how modern grids are distributing electricity from various generator scattered all over the place? Is that really cost efficient?
@@付和雷同-j5b I think you understand both the technology and challenges better than you think. The part you leave out is political, where politicians will force or subsidize things that aren't effective, simultaneously blocking others from doing things that are effective.
Remember, even in countries that claim otherwise, the electric grid is always 100% controlled by politicians- not engineers.
@@付和雷同-j5b In TL:DR form, you have large energy producers and adjustment power producers. Small hydro, solar etc falls into larger energy production bracket, where its drop in the bucket in comparison when rest put out hundreds of megawatts. Even if it was readily available all around, power needs in certain area like city can easily overwhelm even larger producer if lines outside are cut witch balance the use and production, causing those with in most likely run out of frequency and emergency cut out from grid, since just 0.5hertz can destroy equipment and that will be very VERY expensive bill who ever fucked up. More complex the machine is, more sensitive it is frequency changes, unless it was designed to work in different ranges but thats beside the point and each item design. Since you cant throttle nuclear power plant up and down fast, there are rapidly responding powerplants that are adjustment power producers, who can turn the whole plant off and on again in seconds to minutes. This is when grid is fully working. Due next question of where the power is cheapest and most practical to produce for instance cost of hauling the fuel around, plants are setup all over the place where its best suited and due the sizes and type of plants electricity might need to be moved long distances. When grid is damaged, larger area is cut out from power, then brought back in steps to locate where the damage is witch requires the adjustment power. During large storm many such events happen and adjusting power plants need to response in over production or under production, so frequency stays with in set standards. If it does not, that mean in worst case scenario ether totally fucked up electronics if fail safes fail, or most likely almost just as bad result: frequency collapse, where all plants emergency cut off from grid and whole country can go dark. Getting grid up from this situation is absolute fucking nightmare, witch is hella expensive and should be avoided in all costs.
"Why they don't consume the electricity where it produced rather than sending into the grid??" Simple. Cost of production vs whats paid for it. You recall the world ending electricity prices in Europe? Well cause of this simple thing, Sweden and Norway produced shit ton of cheap energy since their productions costs were rather low. This power then was sold to Finland... witch sold all the excess and further sold it to Estonia, who sold it further. Top of that Finnish people were plead to save all the power they can for sake of the "environment" and that enough power would be available to everyone...all the saved witch was sold to Estonia for great profits who most likely did same thing. Just goes to show how we are scammed, with climate crisis etc bullshit.
For small production its nice little extra but at best they can produce maybe a megawatt or two that gets lost to total production and mostly only useful to person who produces it. For instance my neighbor has top of the line larger solar setup. On winter his on mostly taking all the power from grid and summer producing some into the grid while producing most of his power least during the day... or starts the diesel generator when power price is high and sells this "green solar energy" to grid. This is just small scale how green energy scam is done by larger companies.
This is just the bits i have learned from powerplants head electrician, but the whole topic is much much more complicated when we go from power production to systems in thems selfs globally and god damn politics and scams, but simply said yes it would be beneficial to have small scale power production, say macro nuclear reactors and utilize resources available, but micro hydro, etc if its not able to produce extra top of your own usage, is not really that practical in grid scale even if there was enough land and people installing these setups. Specially when you look into cities that consume most of that energy.
Great overview. I question if it is safer than safe bladed designs considering the possibility of crushed by the ball as it approaches the wall of the chamber.
Yeah, ball should stay centered.
Sometime in the 90's I attended a "Fieldays" event in the Waikato (NZ) which showcased new inventions, technology, equipment etc. On display and for sale was a submersible generator which when dropped into a water flow provided Ac power. Instead of your ping pong ball concept, the ball was a neodymium magnet, free spinning inside a housing to generate the current. The ball (rotor) wasn't attached to a shaft. I still have the advertising paperwork, but sadly, didn't buy one of the units and have never seen them elsewhere. Was the concept bought and shelved? Who would know?
Wow! Any info on the paperwork?
Sounds fascinating....
Hope you find out more.
I think, to kickstart the vortex, the previous design (snail shape) or inlets like the ones in the vortex fire jet stove are better. And then the axis can be made more static and not wobbling around.
The way it works has nothing to do with a vortex, it's due to lift on the wobbling sphere, this guy's just confused about how it works.
As with all hydro systems, regardless of the method employed, you’re extracting energy from the river which reduces the silt carrying capacity of the flow, so you immediately get silting up of the river.
There is so much human or natural intervention that in any case there will be more or less of it in an area at one time or another.
One more obviously will have an effect, but with our current weather conditions it is or all or nothing from one day to another.
There was a story about the Nile and the appearance of animal species at its exit which would be due to dams.
But scientifically it is very debated and it is directly related to what you are talking about
dredge silt and put it back on land it came from?
@@paulabuchanan8375 And use up more energy than you’re generating
@@paulabuchanan8375 as if dredging uses no energy. You can't extract more energy from a system than you'd have to use to put that system back in the original state, ever. If you could, that would be a perpetual motion machine.
That is why we use coal, oil, nuclear power and solar power - those are non-renewable but we don't try to renew them, we just use them and they are gone.
Sun is also non-renewable but it's just so HUGE we can't even dream of using it up in our lifetimes, so in principle it IS a finite resource.
Incorporate a gravity filter into the system and largely automate the removal might work. i.e. use physics to get the silt to drop in a convenient location for removal.
1 Problem, the vortex doesn't generate enough torque to rotate a generator to produce power from. What looks good in theory doesn't usually transmit into practical cost effective uses.
This might just be a misnomer from branding it as "Vortex hydrokinetics". In a typical turbine setup you'd be absolutely correct. In this case the vortex isn't directly driving the turbine. The offset hollow rotator and confusor are the magic elements that make this unstable rotation kick out enough torque. There may also be some gearing involved with the magnetic coupler (mfgr isn't clear on that.) That said, while the water velocity/head requirement is super low at 4 m/s, it still requires 650 liters/second (170-ish gallons/second) of water flow rate for the 5KW turbine to operate nominally. (Reference page 8 of the SETUR-L owner's manual.) So, a moderately sized river is still required. :\
literally what I thought watching this. Hydro turbines have wicket gates controlled by a governor which alters the flow of water through the turbine to keep the RPM constant, and makes adjustments as the LOAD requirements change.
I don't see how this "bladeless" turbine is going to be practical, as it would need to be able to compensate very quickly. If not, it these bladeless turbine will never be commissioned and approved for connection to any power grids.
@@QuakeDragon PE=mgh.
so...im getting 2,340,000L/hr.
at 4M, gives me a PE of 25KWh.
KE, at point of impact, or in this case, turbine blade...
25KWh, at 8.8m/s...
a this point i couldnt be bothered going further... have to start guessing diameters and distances moved after impact and thats all a bit of a grey area here...
other than... if you dont let the water flow at all... no work is done. block a hose at the end... no movement. no work.
if the water flows freely, at full velocity with no restriction... no work is done. let the hose wave wildly. it has almost no mass to counteract the reaction of water exiting the nozzle. no work is done.
strap it to a weight so it moves the weight at half the velocity, and oh my... work is done... the maximum amount of work that can be performed, the largest mass/weight that can be moved at the highest velocity by the energy contained in that moving fluid with momentum.
that is... half the energy of the fluid in motion cannot be extracted. if you extract all of it, water doesnt FLOW anymore.
at best, you get 12.5KWh from the 650L/s at 4M.
then the generator combo? well... that all gets into what load the generator is working into, but again... same applies... 50/50. at best, you get 6.25KWh at the load powered by the generator powered by the turbine. now we delve into teh electrical equivalent of the same principle... "jacobs law"... once the load is the same resistance as the generator or source, thats it... half the energy in the generator, half in the load. any overload resistance either draws more current, at a lower potential, or draws less current at a higher potential... 50/50 is the point of maximum efficiency... half in the load, half in the generator...
the irony of these "efficiency ratings"?
you can only EVER extract HALF the energy. that is "100% efficiency".
again...convert PE to KE, the fluid is traveling at max velocity, with no restriction, performing no work.
convert KE to PE, there is ZERO velocity, and again... zero work done.
the maximum amount of work one can extract is when the fluid is impeded to half its velocity as it transfers momentum to another object.
Thanks for doing all that research in order to make this fascinating video!! Keep it up, young man
It looks like they've invented a giant mortar and pestle to crush fish instead of chop.
I submit that "vortexes" is incorrect; it may be in common use by people who don't know better, but it's clear that with this sort of word (and it's origin) it should be vortices, like vertex -> vertices, matrix -> matrices, codex -> codices, dominatrix -> dominatrices, index -> indices.
I’ve got a crazy idea. Rig it up so you have a small reservoir that repeatedly fills and empties. Either have gates upstream and downstream that you alternate opening and closing or build a giant bell siphon. Either way, the reservoir has floats in it that rise and fall with the water level. Turn the mechanical motion of those floats into electricity.
Look up destiny 2 titan wave generators. Something like that?
@@bossjosh423 Based on what I can find with a quick Google search, yeah, that looks pretty spot-on.
There are similar systems being tested based on buoyancy in seawater, to make use of the waves.
And there also "sea buoys batteries" being studied. Basically, you use cheap electricity to reel the buoys to the bottom of the sea, and release them to recover (part of) the energy.
If you have a dam which regularly floods and empties (thinking on the Panama channel and the like) you could reel the buoy when the water is low at almost no cost (since there would be no pulling) and then release it when you fill the dam.
I'd say that's pretty solid for being based on a gas filled container in a liquid :p
it's likely to work but I would guess the efficiency is poor.
7:07 so now instead of blades cuting fish, you have a ball squashing fish
If a fish can be caught between the ball and the wall of the turbine, it's not really fish safe. A bladed turbine can be safer if it there is no risk of hitting the leading edge of a blade. Hitting the side of a blade is not an issue as long as the blade is not moving too quickly.
Bigger blades would help with that in principal. In theory that should allow slower rotation while recovering the same amount of energy.
Pressure differences kill fishes as well like peoples. There's could be many bars different before and after turbine or blades.
So just keep fishes away from it. Much realistic way.
efficiency goes up with turbine speed, modern turbines spin as fast as the materials allow.
@@alanhat5252 I don't believe this is completely accurate. The blades have a flow rate that they are optimal for, it's a curve that peaks and then drops off. You don't want to design a blade that is optimised for a flow rate that can't be achieved given the source of that flow. That would be inherently inefficient.
This is largely due to turbulence caused by the flow not being parallel to the surface causing flow seperation at non optimal flow rates.
This should be much less of a factor in Tesla turbines and this ball turbine, as in theory the flows are designed to be parallel to the surfaces, so to remain laminar in nature.
The blades do however get a mechanical torque advantage, but it's a trade off with the inefficiencies caused by flow seperation at non optimal flow rates.
Tesla turbines tend to be more efficient at low flow rates, although arguably that's just because blades are typically design for efficiency at more typical flow rates I believe.
Tesla turbine.. I built one 5 years ago. It still works amazing.. Thank you for the Video.
Just a suggestion: golden ratio or Fibonacci number. The snail like shape produces most efficient spiral for vortex.
Amazing, so simple, yet so effective! Simple, elegance
they should add channels or tunnels through the ball which would speed it up and create a jet like nozzle
Simular to arkamineese screw. & make the ball/ prop, egg shaped. Can still be fish safe. If design is right.
Looks like some rock crushers you see in gravel quarries. Those see a ton of wear and tera (duh they are crushing rocks) but with the same motion it makes me curious what kind of operational wear and tear you can expect from these hydro turbines. Long-term costs could increase over solar if they require more frequent maintenance. Cool design, cool video, thanks for the hardwork and the upload 👍
I appreciate your method of information reveal.....it has stimulated my interest to seek further data. Kudos to you.
Love the little irl/practical experiment, hope we get more of those in the future!
Should replace the ball with a series of disc's. This will increase the surface area that has contact with the rotating water and increase its efficiency gaining available energy.
This is similar in principal to a Tesla turbine being more effective with a number of thin discs. Integza had a recent video mentioning something similar.
Seems like this could be achieved without the ball and less risk of being a grinder by using the exterior walls as the moving surface instead. So snail shell shape to redirect to a rotational force, directed onto moveable outer wall which is maximized to increase surface area as much as possible (roughness, dimples, groves etc). That rotational movement is then used as input for a generator. Flow should also have more energy in the outer regions where the wall is than in the middle with the ball I believe.
Obviously technically more difficult to rotate the wall than a ball. Guessing there would likely be less wear as well.
I believe the Coriolis effect should be sufficient to start the rotation of the vortex without the need of a ball.
but its not... ;)
Well done! Much appreciate presentation. Have been following/researching Turbulent for applications in New England and wish to know more on your activities, Thanks JP
I am confused about where the numbers for power generation come from in the 9 minute area. I tried watching it a few times, but still not sure where that 300,000kWh number comes from. 300,000kWh means there would need to be 60,000 hours in a year if generating at 5kW.
You didn't need to get that number from the internet, just multiply number of hours in a year by 5kW.
365 days x 24 hours = 8760 hours per year.
X 5 kW = 43,800kWh each if running at 100% all year.
So if you use the 17% number for solar (probably still a little bit on the high side for a lot of places, averaged over the year), then that would be 7,446 kWh a year for a 5kW system. (~14.9% of 50,000 kWh)
If the turbine is running at 50% over the year, then that's 21,900 kWh (14.6% of 150,000)
To me it looks like your numbers are for 7 years not 1 year.
Very interesting on the micro power benefit. Was wondering about building structures for wind. The three blade turbines are mostly space over the blade sweep area, but if you could have a chimney type structure you may get generating in over 2m/s winds. In England you can have a long shed in the garden, but not a high shed (OK up to 2.5m). Probably needs louvre shutters, so still has a shed character.
Worth nothing, the geometric profile of the turbine (the curved white plastic part shown at 01:17) is clearly made after Viktor Schauberger's hyperbolic funnel. The asymmetric position of the ball perhaps favors the onset of such a vortex formation (and is here to harness the force to convert it into electrical power) but as shown by Schauberger's collected scientific works, a hyperbolic funnel automatically generates a vortex in a flowing fluid.
Had a bit of a doubt inbetween, but at the end i was convinced this channel is worth to be supported. Neutral presentation, trustworthy and meaningful conclusions - i would like this as a youtube filter.
that's not _fish safe_ , that's a macerator!
From a roach’s perspective the options are being diced into bite sized chunks or a 1500rpm washing machine spin cycle.
power from sewage
@@futurestrader74 Diced or crushed/beaten. Neither sound great choices if I was a fish. But every little bit helps I guess
As for fish safety? I have seen rock crushers work on a similar principle (going round the inner circumference). This mechanism at the speeds it was shown running would crush any fish trying to pass through. The low efficency makes it a no go solution.
i was thinking the same thing, the way i saw that thing violently moving looked like it would make minced meat from fishes. Frankly, the slow moving bladed version he showed that was supposed to be slow enough not to harm the fish seemed quite a bit more fish friendly, and likely has a higher efficiency.
I think for a fish safe turbine unit they could use the tesla turbine effect , just use a row of textured disks spread apart it should yield a fair amount of power output.
if i remember correctly tesla turbines need a fairly high fluid velocity to function properly
yea it would take many of disks to have any yield of power production in low velocity fluid.
Good job ! This structure can be combined with a permanent water pump structure ( motionless ) that supplies water back and does not require additional water !
Hydro powered fish grinder.
Nice, I live in Zambia and this would be great in the rural areas.
So if the ball is going along the outer edge of the funnel, how does it not just squish any fish that gets to close?
The water, along with the fish, is on the other side of the ball and if it’ll fit it’ll go on through with the water.
I suppose you’d need to keep the bigger ones from getting in though.
It’s basically preventing any fish to enter in the first place, it’s not exactly fish safe to go through.
He noted that this spinning ball funnel can be a much cheaper option?
@@MP-vc4nu The point was that you don't have to build an expensive "filter" system and can just have the fish go through the "turbine".
@@stanweaver6116 The ball rotates along the outside, sure swirl and water pressure will usually move the fish ahead of the ball, but if the fish does something stupid and gets close it might just get caught and turned into paste
It's way more expensive than solar, because I would have to move to a river with access to the river first before being able to start comparing them ;-)
Besides, there is a hydro power plant some miles away, where I think that I get my electricity from. So, this place is already taken. The places along the river are already taken. Along the other rivers too.
But it's nice that someone says that water power is also a renewable energy source, at least as long as the sun shines and as long as this all together makes rain fall and the falling rain gets collected and flows in rivers...
Would this also work in freezing temperatures of winter? I know that rivers and streams do not freeze solid. Did you run across any studies on this matter?
To claim that it would be able to run 24/7 is a best case scenario and is obviously is not taking into account seasonal changes such as ice, or reduced stream flows in drought conditions.
Super interesting, I'm beginning to regain a touch of hope with all of the concept power generation and storage ideas popping up recently
That vortex will kill fish so they net to net it off. So you can just as well use a blade.
I'm not a physicist so prepare yourself for a dumb question... that drive shaft attached to the ball looked clumsy, inefficient and like a single point of failure. I'm guessing that it leads up to some sort of dynamo. What if you break up the dynamo and move its coil into the ball and its magnets to around the outside of the cup ? Figuring out how to access the electric current flowing inside the ball underwater rather than in air might be a challenge but perhaps this has already been done in some form of electric motor in a boat or submarine...
Why ?
The air gap must be very small between the rotor and stator as this is where the magnetic field transfers from rotor to stator.
A big gap has high losses.
Nikola Tesla invented a bladeless turbine over 100 years ago. Glad to see somebody is wanting to try it again now that metalurgy has advanced.
The architecture of this design is different from Tesla's design and very innovative.
I look forward to seeing this tested in actual environment.
Sadly, I suspect the ball may present a pinchpoint for the fish, but perhaps there is some hydr dynamic principle that would keep them away from the pinch point?
Archimedes screw generator, low head and fish safe, max efficiency 81%.
I also had this idea with wind but the water has the advantage of always turning in the same direction. 👍
The vibration inherent in the system will make it unreliable.
Looks like a lot of largely unbalanced force on the main shaft, so agree could be some maintenance/engineering challenges due to that.
"Come see the -violence- vibration inherent in the system!"
When I was quite young (about 10 years old) I noticed that if you put a ping-pong ball in the bath plug hole and leave it in a static position in the middle of the plug hole, the water flows evenly and smoothly round it. If you put the ball to one side and flick it so that it starts rotating, it continues rotating very fast (and noisly) and the rate of water flow reduces dramatically - even though at any given moment the amount of space round the side of the ball remains exactly the same as when it is statically positioned in the middle. I thought at the time it was very interesting, but didn't know what application it might have. Now I can see. I think one problem of their design though was that the ball rotated in a central tubed section and there was flow going past it in the outer tube. In my view that was likely to have been wasting energy.
Turbulent: if the water source is diverted from the main river, fish would be kept out in the fist place. Imagine dozens of these reusing the same water, over and over. Plug-in mini power distribution hubs could be placed above each turbine...
Did I mention it's the SAME water. Cover it with a grate, for a walking path, with Solar panels for a covered lookout poit, or a food carts. I've been to this place, in my thoughts. In The Columbia Gorge, Washington side so it faces South. The power-path could conceivably go all the way To the ocean. Anyway, good program.
Interesting, this looks like a variation on a Tesla turbine(in that flat-ish surface interacting with liquid is making the energy transfer happen), I wonder what is the efficiency of this thing and can it be increased somehow...by adding ridges to the ping pong ball...but that would possibly already be a turbine :D
What about an externally spun top strung with copper wire within a shroud. The external ring the water swirls around spinning the top, at the Venturi point is also strung with copper wire. No direct drive to drag the spin. Effectively a magnetically and buoyancy-specifically stabilized top. Turned by the vortices draining around it. The magnetic stabilization being at an algorithmic ratio to pointed. In theory it could continue to accelerate the effect through several stacked iterations as the siphon effect accumulates.
What about designing the generator around the housing and put windings in the ball. The ball then becomes a rotor and since everything is free moving it would seem to me to minimize loss to mechanics. The electromagnets on the housing would rotate as well. The speed of the balls rotation would synch with the magnet rotation. Just a thought
This was totally new to me, one of the 3D printing guys on youtube has to make a video about these things! Build a working turbine and optimise for power output! If I was living next to a flowing river I would start building right now!
I'm an environmentalist, and I approve of this message.
Great, very impressive; I do this for a living and what your presented is at fore front innovation
Cool share, thanks. Remember to experiment with dimpling or bumps on the surface of the hemisphere, too. Smooth versus patterned surfaces. Regards. D.P. Henderson, NV, USA
True. Not only rivers and higher lakes are source of energy. Sea water can be used at lower islands.
No joke: paid for three of these SETUR-L turbines at the beginning of 2022. They still have not arrived. When they said it's not available, they weren't kidding.
Due to lightweight steel construction, old fashioned water wheels had reached 90% efficiency when steam came along. Coal was cheap and (like electric cars) water wheels were derided as old hat and not sexy, so into history’s bin they went. Time to revive these pleasant, low-tech, nature friendly devices.
Blade free, critter safe, my mind popped up, a can inside the bigger one, spiral etched or bio- mimic ridged inside to tuna scale hydro slip, with hydroelectric collection, rigidity, etc, all in the stationary outside cylinder. Pop out moving part replaceable. Eh? No ball, no?
Remember, low output preferred over no output, often! Why the ball?
What I find very scary is how few people in the comments have failed to see the blinding obvious, that fish just get crushed instead of chopped. People are just so gullible! Yes your highness your new birthday suit is so exquisite!!!!
Love the demo - this was super cool!
0:41 I was relieved to see an actual human being speaking. You have exactly the same accent as the robotic voice in those videos that tell you how to heat your home with an old tanning lamp, or how to cure cancer with a doorbell transformer. It was a very interesting video nonetheless. Thanks for posting.
All hydropower plants have enormously high construction costs relative to their yield.
The costs for small hydropower are therefore usually 15 to 25 cent/kWh. And hydropower plants have to be cleaned of branches, rubbish etc. every day.
With solar modules, on the other hand, you can reliably (except the winter) generate green electricity for 25 years at approx. 3-10 cent/kWh!
Hydropower turbines are therefore only worthwhile if you need to be self-sufficient from the grid.
If you could just chuck one of these into the nearest river and start getting some kind of power from it, that would be pretty wild.
Water sources are public property, so anyone can be allowed to use it how they want. (and the local river has a VERY strong current.)
Finally! New a video!
A nano coating on the ball might increase efficiency depending on the speed of the vortex too
I do solar, you gotta introduce me to these 5kW solar systems at 17% efficiency that produce 50,000kWh in a year because that'd be easy to sell for $5000. This makes me skeptical of the math but you're right on the money with your concepts. Thanks for the video!
I agree with your disbelief regarding the figures presented. Even if some high-end solar PV are around 21% efficient, getting 50,000kWh in a year would be impossible even in the most ideal conditions. He needs to reappraise his figures.
Yep, maybe 5,000-6,000kWh a year is more realistic
Yup seems to off by a factor of 10.
Adding fins on the ball to transfer more energy into the spin? You mean like turbine blades?
7:45 this is a point I try to communicate in green tech discussions that some folk seem to disregard. if you can deploy energy storage or generation in a place, then you'll obviously want the most effecient one possible. but if you CAN'T deploy that one, then something is better than nothing. Further, in the case of secondary generation and storage, such as for waste heat, you can often run lower-efficiency systems off of the 'leftovers' of high-efficiency systems. (such as running an stirling hot-air engine off of the waste heat from a steam system)
also, I find that the Point of Diminishing Returns is often miscalculated, as some low-efficiency tech, fueled by High-Efficiency techs' leftovers or wastes, can operate continuously, with little-to-no maintenance, for decades, or even CENTURIES. but because the ROI isn't large enough _in the short term_ they dismiss them as pointless... this is VERY frustrating, as it is a real barrier to Global Carbon Neutrality and Fossil Fuel Independence when we "Allow Perfect to be the Enemy of Good", and obsess over finding Direct-Analog, _singular_ solutions...
Damn! These guys are actually headquartered very close to me and I recently researched them because I was interested in what technology they used. Cool coincidence that you made a video too.
Incredibly interesting video ! Thank you for sharing !
That looks like a brilliant way of smearing any fish trying ti swim though it into a very fine paste very quickly.
There is probably a coanda effect on the water and ball that may be useful. Maybe a directional roughness on the ball instead of fins etc.
The more fin-like the "roughness" is the higher the efficiency - the turbine has the highest and this smooth ball the lowest i.e. none. I bet that connecting this contraption to an actual generator and load will prove abysmal efficiency of this setup.
I guess the point is to harness power without killing the wildlife in the river/stream.@@vaakdemandante8772
I would imagine it's pretty low torque compared to other designs.
Stacked discs to increase surface area and efficiency just like Tesla turbines.
A very interesting turbine, but, as other commenters have mentioned, it doesn't seem to scale up and retain the "fish safe" feature.
Also, what is to prevent it from becoming clogged with weeds?
I'm thinking that there might be a better solution for making a turbine fish safe.
In the first place, make it generate "noise" that repels the fish. Any fisherman can tell you that fish spook easily.
Now add to that something that "wastes" some of the rotational force of that turbine to "wash" the fish away from the inlet. I won't attempt to design such a device, but imagine it as a porous paddle wheel moving slowly such that it pushes fish sideways and away from the entry without diverting as much of the water.
As to initiating the vortex, any spiral asymmetry could do that. Alternatively, the attached generator could be used as a motor, powered from a battery, to initiate the rotation. This might suffice to eliminate the need to re-route the fish, as the ball could be rigidly centered in the apparatus, or at least centered sufficiently so as to leave sufficient room for fish between the ball and the cone at all times.
From what i get it looks fish-safe when the ball is centered in the cylinder but just to add a detail... if the ball's surface was less smooth so water can have some slight grip .. the turbine might be a little more powerful generating a little more energy..... Just thinking out loud. Thanks for sharing this.
I suspect that a rough surface,or ridges would improve the ball's rotation.(k.i.s.s.)always look for "simple"tweaks first.
Dam!
There must be an equally simple way to create a weir and a chute to increase flow in one location and still allow fish to travel safely between levels.(pun)
But,seriously.
Make a weir.
construct a chute diagonally across the weir face.(
simply place a tethered ball at the bottom and another at the top.
(There will be an eddy in each location for you to harvest energy from,even when the river is not in SPATE)
I'm not clear on the financial comparison between solar and turbine. It seems the cost of mounting solar would be much less than the cost of building/maintaining a dam, and that was not included.
Small rivers are less consistent and maintenance will further be an issue. In Switzerland there was a company with a similar approach they called "Wasserwirbelkraftwerk" and they went bankrupt.
Probably the most fish-friendly solution would be to channel the water into a bucket, which then becomes heavy and is pullled down by gravity on a bucket chain. Of course, that requires a fair head of water, and would prevent fish from getting upstream - so *_they_* might not find it very friendly.
Small hydro is fascinating. Some day I would love to live out in a more rural area and take advantage of something along these lines. But my biggest fear isn't for fish, it is that leaves and debris would provide me with a full time job cleaning the thing lol.
I also wonder about the lack of storage need with something like this. For a single home, or even a small compound or rural business, you are going to have peaks and draws of demand. If you are installing a generator around your peak power needs, then you are going to waste a lot of unused power from a massively overbuilt system. Plus, no system has 100% up time. You need at least some storage to provide for regular maintenance or damage/repairs. So if you need storage anyways, then you may as well buy a smaller unit... Or have something massive to shunt excess power into like heat storage or a crypto farm or something lol.
Bitcoin mining solves that issue
2:10 Perhaps they can improve this by giving the ball a rougher surface so it grips the water vortex better ???
You probably know this already. The Coreolis force is what makes water rotate as it goes down the plughole. In the Southern hemisphere it rotated the other way. Water down a plughole doesn't need to be stirred first. It's a small force.
Thank you for the table at 9:35, was wondering how the different techniques compare in cost
You can create a vortex drain by the design of the bowl and where the water enters it. a sloping side design will create the water vortex.
Real time experience around Melbourne Australia gives PV = 3 times watt value every 24 hours = to 12.5% efficiency. That is summer and winter over about 11 years by now. Of cause it decreases over time as the PV's weakens but fairly accurate over the first 4 years of an installation. I have multiple installations.
There was a promising design with a wave, travelling between two diaphragms. Low pressure, and no head to speak of, just needing to be submerged in the flow. Replicating water's pathways, I would think it's quite fish-safe.
I would expect the ball to stop rotating with even minimal load applied ... it depends solely on "surface drag" and that cannot be much at all...