Robbaz slacker. Get to work on from the depths. Lol just kidding. I don’t care that your slacking. Also I’m guessing this got recommended for you as well?
Yea there could be a PVC mesh at the Canal Inlet, where only Water enters. The mesh can be optimized for optimum flow. Anyways, a great product and many many turbines can be placed one after the other all along the canal for more output.
@@travellerquotes9076 if the inlet stopped the fish, i'm wondering if the fish would get stuck on the inlet. just like a tennis ball would get stuck to your home vacuum.
@@DecadantHandshake not a scam, a fantastic idea that doesn't work out due to just overzealousness. Most communities won't opt to put these in for every 60 homes all along the rivers they're built around. It also obviously only works if you have a river. Solar roadways didn't work out, and the sun is everywhere... this will see limited use most likely.
@@BeeBrained-PS99 Solar roadways seemed doomed from the start. Too expensive, hard to maintain, would get dirty, the glass would be slippery. It would actually be more effective to just build the solar panels directly above the road. Why not start with Southwest Parking lots? Shade the whole lot with solar panels and you'd be doing a public service while also making electricity.
The farm estate near me has had one of these for quite a few years except the turbine is upright, rather than on it's side like in this design. It's very impressive and generates a lot of electricity when the river is high. Only problem is that they needed a government grant to afford to install it. A dog got sucked through it on one of the shoots but he was absolutely fine.
The big step in 21st century will be to build up an efficient and intelligent infrastructure and storage sytem. I'm curious how gigantic companies who are offering limited ressources like oil will change their strategy and how they will make us pay for generating our own power in our backyard by wind and sun or river turbines in local cooperatives. The costs could be as low as only using infrastructure.
@@hurtigheinz3790 this is why we gotta stop giving away billions in subsidies to dirty energy and invest in renewables. The big dirty donors need to become irrelevant.
@@BenFrankarts We just need guarenteed compenstion for every kW/h being put into the grid. With this security everyone would start building his own "power plant". About ~15 years ago there a high and guarenteed compensation here in Germany.
Amazing how we suddenly have so many views and comments! And thank you for all of the advice! I just want to clarify a few things I saw asked in the comments: - We shot this footage during commissioning. When installing a hydropower turbine you first test it for a while at half the nominal flow. That's what you see passing through this turbine. It doesn't look very stable yet, as it needs additional flow for the vortex to stabilize itself (Think about how you get that sucking sound at the last few liters running from your bath tub). Full flow of this turbine is 1.8m3/s with a height difference of 1.7m. That gives 15kW of useful electric power with our efficiency of 50%. - When we were finished shooting the video, we put back the trash rack (with a spacing between the bars of 10cm as that is the maximum debris size that can pass through) and the mesh that covers the whole basin. No children, dogs, pirates,... can fall in. -60 homes can be powered in Chile with an average household power demand of 0.25 kW. The average in many European countries is 0.5 kW. The average in American homes could well be a few MW if the comments are to go by :P -Yes, waterwheels have been done before, and turbines as well. We don't claim to have invented hydropower. We claim, however, that we have made this size of hydropower an interesting investment with a lower cost and a higher efficiency. Our hope is to offer a clean, eco-friendly alternative for investors, land owners, industries etc to generate power from the rivers that they have running in their neighborhood. As one of the co-founders, I can tell you that I enjoy nature, and that I want my kids growing up learning about and seeing technologies that try to work in harmony with it. - Some rivers meander too much for our technology. These rivers aren't suitable. We know about this, thank you for mentioning it. -We're not related to any kickstarter or crowdfund campaign. I made the video in my spare time as a hobby and I'm honestly a bit surprised that it became so popular. What I was hoping for, was to meet like minded people who want to help make our vision a reality. Affordable electrification for all without harming nature. A lot of people here have been really nice, with lots of helpful advice. Thank you for that! I believe we, as a society, can achieve anything if we just work together. - Any good scientific peer review should scrutinize the numbers. I'm busy making a new video with full flow footage and footage of our inverter power readout. Please tell me what you'd like to see in there and I'll try and arrange it :) - Last but not least: we're still in the testing phase. Currently we're checking all the systems and we're making sure this turbine can do what it promises. It seems to be holding up well against erosion and debris. We had some power cable heating, but got it solved. We will also be conducting fish friendliness tests. The whole design was based on the fish friendly design parameters of the Alden turbine Labs. We will validate those numbers. This model is now being worked on and we will be ready by July 2018 with our testing phase. When all of that is done, we will be ready to start helping people everywhere to develop their very own hydropower turbine and build their future! Thank you for your attention, stay tuned for more updates!
Could you share an example project setting (e.g. water flow and vertical drop) and associated cost? I think we'd all know the costs would vary from one project to the next, but it would be really interesting to see an example. Thanks!
Dosadoodle our first 15kW is built for $5000/kW. With that our our customer should have a payback time of around 5 years. That Doñihue project runs with a flow of 1.8m3/s and a useful height difference of 1.7m. Now we're optimizing components and working with our suppliers to produce parts at a lower cost and consistent quality.
Engineer here. This will be somewhat inefficient as plenty of energy goes into the wall as friction. However, I'd imagine that this is more fish friendly (although don't know by how much) and that the equipment should be cheaper to build and maintain than a more traditional hydro electric setup. The biggest obstacle, as far I can see, is to keep the concrete from corroding within the first year.
Architect here. There are lots of chemicals to prevent concrete from corroding. They are used in industrial buildings resisting the fricton and pressure caused by heavy equipments. They also smooth the surface and reduce fricton.
Austrian here. We have been building things like this since years. It got patented by an ami called Kenard D. Brown back in 1968 and realized by austrian inventor Franz Zotlöterer for the first time in 2003. Here is the thing: Efficiency of 60% theoretically, but max. 48% de facto (I've also seen things with under 30%). Even simple water wheels are better than this. The swiss company that installed this things with Zotlöterer got bankrupt in 2016.
Kristopher Hall also what if a tree branch gets dragged down the river into it, wire mesh on the sides, though that gets rid of the whole fish friendly thing. :(
works at night. works when wind isn't blowing. no battery. efficiency is very secondary. installation requirements are simple. regulation of voltage/amperage output important dynamically. you could distill water as a power sink if need be.... Cool stuff - wish you well in your projects :)
Yup. Its an issue - and depending on the location, with more intermittency than a standard dam where they can maintain a higher head of water for longer. Our hydroelectric production reduces signficantly in places like CA when moisture in a year drops. But with this system, it's good while you've got it and flow is up.
Right. However, due to the Corialis effect, in the southern hemisphere the flow would be anticlockwise, which would cause the electrons from generation to run up your arse, and not into the grid.
"and the simple concrete walls have been cast on site by unskilled workers" They were probably talking about the concrete walls at the "outlet" because the turbulent is already prefabricated.
you do realize what the term unskilled means right? It's not that they have no skills, it's that they aren't specialized in a field that requires education or practice i.e. welders, mechanics, engineers, doctors, etc. The point in the comment was that you don't need any specialized workers to help set up the power plants, therefore would be easy for a 3rd world country or smaller cities to bring one of these generators in and only requiring only people who can do basic construction worker level work to install it and get it working
This company is simply saying that they only want to pay their workers a buck or two above minimum wage. They're probably banking on getting private jobs. On federal jobs (and some state jobs) this work is done by carpenters, laborers, and/or Ironworkers that get paid prevailing wage, even with precast. Same with the part about hydro turbines being expensive to maintain and causing floods. I lived in Wenatchee for 30 years and most of these claims aren't real. The precast pieces are joined together by weld plates that need to welded together and patched back by a concrete finisher. However in a typical precast yard, the company generally uses prefabbed formwork that's set by your typical entry level worker. Any precast yard that I've ever dealt with generally have a handful of carpenters that tell the grunts what to do.
It looks like a turbo on a car engine, but it is a nice type of hydroelectric power. Just look at alternative water dam designs and you'll find many good solutions. This would be good if its cheaper and comparably efficient to solar. Also if the place doesn't receive adequate sunlight. But solar is becoming better and better every year and will likely become the dominate green power solution.
@@shelbyseelbach9568 Not sure in which country you live but in danger of generalization I'd say most countries didn't react fast enough and subsequently needed to address it with prolonged measures. Usually also because people didn't follow early measures.
@@vocassen isn't it funny that the flu kills the exact same group of people by the hundreds of thousands around the world every year but we don't shut down the entire world economy in response? It's all ridiculous at every level. The governments have served up the kool aid, and the people can't seem to get enough to drink. Just ridiculous.
Vishal Jadhav I like roller coasters but not everybody does....so I'm just saying...what if...maybe if fish are similar? I've watched a lot of videos about things I never studied...and some animals make noises when hurt or disoriented....so maybe fish do as well and we just don't know...I heard lobsters scream hen boiled...
SDD525 I have seen that before...in freshwater sharks...I'm not an expert but I think that is a defense thing...when they turn and sleep for a few seconds....I'm sure other people will let you know what that means but also easy to look up on you tube
While this is a neat idea, it looks like it won't scale at all. This would be great for getting power to remote communities not already served by a grid, but not much else I think. I would _really_ play down the comparisons to traditional hydroelectric power, because those comparisons make your device looks really, really bad. Consider a more in depth comparison against the Hoover Dam and those transmission lines you crap on so much at the start of the video. The Hoover Dam produces 2,080,000 kW. Your system produces 15 kW. So to replace a large dam like the Hoover, you need 138,666.7 of your units. Assuming you could pack them in super densely on a river, spaced every 100 yards, you'd need almost 9,000 miles of river to produce the same power, more than twice the length of the longest river on the planet. But you'll never get your units installed that densely, so you'd need WAY more than that. Not happening. So this literally cannot replace large scale hydroelectric power. What about more localized power? Let's say we want to power a small American town, population 10,000. We'll be generous and only consider residential power. Let's assume there are an average of 3 people per home, for 3,333 homes to power. The average American home uses 900 kWh of power each month. Your unit produces 10,800 kWh per month, so can power 12 houses (not the 60 you claim, that was dishonest). So to power the small town, you need 278 of your units. _Just_ for the residential power. You also get zero reserve capacity to handle surges, so you either still need those expensive transmission lines to provide power from elsewhere when needed, or overprovision your hydroelectric system, or build energy storage. This is getting really expensive, really fast, and is going to be well outside the budget of what a town of this size could do. Assuming the tax burden is spread evenly, each household would be responsible for 8.3% of the cost of one of your units. You don't mention how much it cost to build these, but my guess is that's not going to be pocket change. Don't interpret this as me saying your technology is bad. I think it's a nice idea, but you're barking up the wrong tree comparing yourself to hydroelectric dams. Play up the way this can power remote communities with limited access to power, that's where this technology will shine. If you come out swinging with "we're so much better than traditional hydro power", then prepare for the internet debunking brigade to rip your claims to shreds.
Output Coupler good arguement, however the 60 homes might still be somewhat true as less developed countries would probably use much less electricity than that Americans or Europeans would.
While this may be true, the argument of this being an alternative to huge dams speaks to it serving larger communities. Smaller damn for smaller communities don't produce the negative side effects that the huge dams used in this video do. Additionally, it also poses other safety issues. While safe for mall fish, I'd hate to see what a larger animal (human child) would do when falling into a turbine. They would likely not fit through and could drown since the current wouldn't allow escape. Plenty of unresolved issues and false arguments present, as interesting as the idea is for the far future when these issues are resolved, etc...
Looks good, I'm a water treatment engineer so used to seeing centrifugal pumps, same principle in reverse and much much bigger ha, awsome. Interesting to see how you will reduce errosion of impellor, a constant pain of mine... Good luck!
Great idea!! No offense...Polyurethane isn't a safe material...regardless of any environmentally safe claims that have been made. Nature (oceans) have enough nuclear waste, pharmaceuticals and other chemicals they already have to deal with. They don't need another bad element being purposely introduced. You should consider something organic in nature as a substitute. I realize that the replacement of the propellers will need changed more frequently, however, that gives more job security...and if they're as cost effective as you claim, then why not sacrifice a small margin of profit to ensure the well being of the environment? Thank you in advance :)
Teflon is not abrasion resistant but it would reduce the friction between the water and the blades, however i wouldn't think the teflon would help much at all in this situation.
0bloodshot0 oh I totaly agree, I simply meant on whether Teflon would help. But I think even at low pressure there could be some serious erosion to the concrete under the turbine.
One of the major downsides is this system is that it requires a consistently fast moving body of water that stays at a fairly constant level year round (no significant droughts or floods). Also, a settling chamber would be very useful to prevent excessive wear and tear on the turbine by debris and sediments. Overall, this product _might_ have _some_ usefulness in very specific scenarios.
I'm thinking smaller towns in rural areas could be more self reliant using something like this. this could be useful on some of the large creeks and rivers in the North Carolina mountains (where I live)
I wrote a paper in college back I think in 87 that was a similar idea using tidal change/surge to fill basins that then discharge - or like this idea it could go both ways - in and out out. Very cool idea and video!
From what I understand, the speed of the blades are set by the speed of the flow, so a fish caught in the system will be moving at the same speed as the flow of water so it seems ok. But i wonder, why can't they just put grid or something like that on the entrance to prevent fish to go there in the first place? (sorry for my english in advance)
"Friendly" to small fish, not so "friendly" to large fish. Or logs, branches, stones, etc. A grate could be installed at the intake, slightly convex and with a grid open enough to prevent debris clogging but tight enough to block entry of large fish/objects.
This seems like a good idea, especially for small cities and rural communities far away from any electric facility. Hope you the best, can't wait to see these being installed here in Italy! Wish you best luck!
Not really. Look at a 20KW home standby genny, maybe 2x or 3x 4' or so. And the fact that it's low pressure will limit the output too. If it's truly putting out what they claim it's a good idea. Will depend on water flow in relation to output too.
Let us assume that the cross section is 0.5m^2 (just for the sake of simplicity). 15,000W = 15,000 kg*m^2/s We divide this by the cross section: 15,000 kg*m^2/s / 5.0m^2 = 30,000 kg/s And because 1,000 kg of water equals roughly to 1m^3 we get 30m^3/s Now we divide this again by the cross section: 30m^3/s / 0.5m^2 = 60m/s This equals to *216km/h* of necessary water velocity. So no. The turbine shown in this video will not provide anything near 15kW of electricity. EDIT: Sorry, my calculation is bollox. I totally neglected the potential energy. Assumption: 0.5m^2 cross section 5m/s flow rate (18km/h) 1m fall height 5m/s * 0.5m^2 = 2.5m^3/s This equals 2,500kg/s Kinetic energy: E_kin = 1/2 * m * v^2 1/2 * 2,500kg/s * (0,5m/s)^2 = *312.5W* Potential energy: E_pot= m * g * h 2,500kg/s * 9,81m/s^2 * 1m = *24,525W* Total engery: 315.5W + 24,525W = *24,837W* So even with half the fall hight, you would expect a reasonable output.
Your power equation don't make sense to me, how did you get it? Based on your unit it appears (kg/s) * (m^2), ie mass flow rate x Area, but that's not power.
Im in Chile right now and I visited the turbulent to see this amazing work. Chile has a lot of places without power and this is a great invention. Nice job.
is this gonna become a worldwide thing or is it another one of those brilliant inventions that would change the world for the better that we hear of once and never ever again for some reason?
I'd like to see this idea do really well, especially as you genuinely seem to consider ecological issues. Personally I think it's great and wish you the best of luck with it. we need lots and lots more of 'em!
There's already tons of small hydro-electric generators available for single houses with varying degrees of sophistication. They're not gravity powered though, they're generally current powered, which provides a lot less energy compared to typical dams, so whether or not they're worth it depends on what you plan on powering.
rivers, streams, creeks, etc are all "gravity powered". A dam just increases the pressure difference between the upstream and downstream side of the turbine which allows for higher flow rates and more power generated from the same river, stream or creek.
Those workers you mention were certainly not unskilled. If one does not know how to install and reinforce concrete structures don't expect them to last.
Yes, I thought the same thing. While it is fish safe (which hydro electric is not), it could be dangerous if a person got caught in it. Great invention btw.
Oh I guess while they're at it put a cover on the rivers and dams out there also. Probably be better to just wrap everyone in cotton wool or lock them in doors can't protect everyone from the dangerous outside world.
@@omshingade291 oh yhe def, like im not saying that fish who get tossed around in strong currents down a small lake with big rocks in it is safe for it either 😅 but thats nature vs nature. This man made mini tornado doesnt look safe. Thats it really😉 and it might even be the best roller coaster ride a fish will ever get and also be 100% safe. I sure hope so hehe
@@Knasern youd be suprised, if you ever go diving and get caught in an underwater current its weird as hell but your always going with the flow of water, the only risk is when its just openned or just closed as the blades wont be moving as the same speed of the water due to resistance and inertia =)
I see one simple mindset here that maybe most of us ignore all this time, that is nature provide so many things for us to be arranged properly for human being convenience without making any destruction to the nature itself. Good job sir. Keep going dont stop.
Is that one in Chile not dangerous? What if someone falls in? Aren't there any safety measures, like a simple mesh or something to stop someone's fall?
Seems interesting. But I doubt it produces 15kw. MAYBE if it's a fast moving river or stream but like other things that are too good to be true I doubt this will work as intended. But I would be more than happy to see you prove me wrong.
Assumption: 0.5m^2 cross section 5m/s flow rate (18km/h) 1m fall height 5m/s * 0.5m^2 = 2.5m^3/s This equals 2,500kg/s Kinetic energy: E_kin = 1/2 * m * v^2 1/2 * 2,500kg/s * (0,5m/s)^2 = *312.5W* Potential energy: E_pot= m * g * h 2,500kg/s * 9,81m/s^2 *1m = *24,525W* Total engery: 315.5W + 24,525W = *24,837W* So even with half the fall hight, you would expect a reasonable output.
Yes that sort of thing is quite doable and has been done for a long time, small hydro. You can buy a small home sized or medium sized hydro generator, you just need some plastic pipe and access to a stream, quite sufficient to power a home if there is adequate water flow. The problem is there are very few sites and few opportunities. I've lived in rural areas and you have a very hard time finding a site suitable for this type of hydro. So it is a bit player and always will be a bit player in the energy game. Great for people who are so lucky to have a good site nearby though.
Keyboard runner. That's only assuming *100%* efficiency extraction. Now what percentage of that 24,837W do you expect will be converted into actual electricity?
Michael Zhou Since I have no data about the quality of the turbine, I will make no statement about its efficiency. Besides that, the turbine is _rated_ to 15kW so it will only produce this power under optimal environment.
Yes, but actually no. When the dams get over pressured, they have no choice but to release all the water, flash flooding the area. _But_ it is true that removing wetland is what causes them to get over stocked in rainstorms.
Amazing it would do wonders in countries like India where rural population is still struggling to get electricity, though the Modi government is very supportive and solar power is becoming quite popular but this can this kind of decentralized hydro power will help immensely.
It wouldn't "do wonders" in India. There's too many people. This thing only powers 60 houses. India has 1.24 billion people. Conventional hydro-electric is the only way to use water effectively.
+moncorp1 Inc Remember that a huge power plant costs a shitload of money to build, requires costly maintenance, you have to transmit some of the power a long distance which requires a high cost infrastructure, etc. This small scale solution is cheap to build with a low maintenance cost and you can do it on a stream. On a river you can slowly build up the number of small generators instead of a big up front cost of a huge power generator.
Dennis Dennis you have personally caused more death than thousands of solar panels. Your pet cat is also killing too many birds. Stop being stupid and go read a bit.
空軍パイロット Any solar reflection off any metal or glass is going to be hotter than our natural surroundings. If you measure the temperature on piece of land with tree's and totally natural surroundings. Then cut all down and put in solar panels. Thanks temperature of that piece of property would triple in temperatures.
I will analyze your arguments for you, since they lack cohesiveness. Your first comment is arguing against solar thermal plants, shown by the statement, "They fry bird's in flight." Your second comment is arguing against deforestation and urbanization. You mistakenly identified the cause of the temperature rise as being from solar panels, rather than the removal of foliage. In case you are wondering why anything I said matters, it is because The Game proposed putting solar panels on top of houses. You said this is wrong because solar thermal plants, a completely different technology, hurt the environment. Then, you said that solar farms raise temperatures by causing the destruction of foliage, even though The Game asked about having solar panels placed onto existing artificial structures. Deforestation would not be a factor here.
Scotch Turbine? Neat, used to power canalboat lift planes on the Morris Canal in New Jersey in early 19th century. Your application to hydropower is rad.
@@fog1962 But ice may form in the structure since it's not fully submerged. Then this ice may break and fall on the turbine, possibly damaging it, or altering the flow
Spaniel Inquisition - Note that Victorian water wheels were vertical (horizontal like Turbulent's is less efficient), and that they only needed to yield around 4-6 kilowatts; the average first world home needs about _30 KW_ each day. OP's right, some numbers would be nice.
enlightenmentfun the key thing is that none of your appliances will be on all the time. That brings down the average power demand significantly. Also in these parts of Chile, they don't often use an aircon. That being said, in the video we state that it can power up to 60 houses (as is the case in many parts of Chile), if you have a higher energy demand, less houses can be powered.
power FOR the people! Fight the oil barrons! the banking cartel! it starts with being energy independent! food, livelihoods, sense of community and purpose surely will follow suit.
I legit had an idea very similar to this in elementary school. When someone asked "where do you want to live when you are older?" I always said next to a river to put in a water power next to it! I'm glad someone had the same idea and a better mind for energy than I to make it a reality!
Why is a water turbine so politically charged? Sure they're trying to sell their idea with a feel good video and catchy title, but I don't think this video is saying this alternative is the only/best form of hydropower. Why not develop/install units like this: they might meet someone's objective for power. Hater's are going to hate, articulate criticism is at least interesting...
The reason is simple. Because so many of these "idea videos" promise checks that they can't cash. One only needs to look at self filling water bottles, underwater breathers, solar roadways, spinning solar cells, waterotor, and the list goes on. Simply put they aren't selling a water turbine. What they are selling is a idea and most ideas turn out to be nothing more than a pipe dream. Now you know why they don't site actual installations nor any scientifically verified specs.
I tried to put together a similar design myself but the locations were more central as they had their own water supply. Good idea. My design is of course merely a dream and quelled almost instantly. Good luck providing for those war torn societies.
Not sure why everyone's getting tweaked by that word. It's a common term and it just means you don't need much special training to do this. It means you'll be able to find people to construct it without difficulty.
The Artful Dodger We tax rich people, to redistribute the money to poor people and equalize the playing field. For example we tax rich bankers, then use the tax money to build such power plants in communities that need it. Thanks to the electricity, the local kids can read and study, go to college, become rich, and then they pay taxes.
Yes but a lot less of them, since these can be deployed closer to the intended customers. Less power lines means less environmental impact as well as higher efficiency overall since the majority of power loss is in the transmission line length.
Since this turbine isn't producing much energy, you can use household power cables for distribution, and you don't have to use transformers. Quite cheap.
The purpose of something like this is to power a remote village that is not well served by the existing grid. It's not an alternative to large hydro, or grid-scale power.
@@admadea simply laying it horizontal and directing the water into it with angular momentum the direction of the wheel is pretty much what they did here. So it's like a water wheel but more efficient, and smaller. But as far as moving parts are concerned I think the only difference here seems to be that the turbine and generator are all one unit instead of a wheel, a rod, and a generator.
@@korkee1111 except, as actual engineers and physicists have pointed out in the comments on this video, you lose around 30 - 40% of the energy from the flow of the water being directed into the curved wall, through friction. This is a low efficiency system, only really useful in situations where alternatives like a traditional waterwheel aren't feasible.
@@admadea @Adam DeWolfe A traditional waterwheel isn't any better 1. Easily destroyable and flamable considering it's made out of wood 2. You need to build a building, some sort of water collecting machine, or a giant dock thing next to the waterwheel 3. Again, of course there's going to be energy loss, however, this machine works in more scenarios than a classic waterwheel (waterwheels don't work with strong winds) 4. They didn't say this technology was better than the waterwheel, it honestly looks like a prototype for it tbh. They want to reduce cost as much as possible and still have a efficient energy machine
Right on, its amazing how many neigh sayer's flock to condemn these things, imagine if the Write brothers, Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla listened to them, we'd still be burning candles!
I think water wheel being larger has more air resistance, hence losing quite substantial % energy. Also this one has higher efficiency in translating the water motion to electricity.
You seem to be developing the tub wheel, 2000+ years after it was invented! Tubulent :-) www.pontiachistory.org/wp-content/uploads/Mill-Machinery/tub.jpg
Ummm well i see an unused idea for this product that does seem disgusting yet would provide electrical energy. Large city sewer sysyems carry large steady volumes of water and well other things of course yet the potential to generate electricity using this product is thete is it not? Just change the design to allow maintenance and up keep that diverts sewer away when needed. Could even be developed into a electrical generating system to power superconductor separators to remove all pollution even bacteria and viruses to generate clean drinking water? A different way to process waste water while producing electrical energy to power a grid. 😊
6 лет назад+3
Indigo Dragon71 , sewer is heavy and needs energy to move it, it does not have differential height to extract energy
that my friend is a billion dollar idea...not sure if the adequate slope would be there. it would take lots of money to develop and the people that would build it and want to go down and service it when needed but it could definitely work!
If you want to have a reliable source of water to keep the turbine going you still need to build some kind of water reservoir upstream. You can't trust the river to always keep the needed volume flow.
Also, don't get me wrong, this is a neat idea. Since a long time small and micro Pelton turbine generators have been used to power isolated communities, but a high pressure differential was needed. Those are also relative inexpensive to build. If your terrain does not give you that sweet water drop of high potential energy but you have a decent water flow, then this type of turbine can work on flatter terrains.
but if you happen to be that one fish in the school of fish that is a little bit heavier then the other fish, and they tease you. Now you come to the fish friendly vortex and ... "i have a bad feeling about what's going to happen here...."!
Same here .. But main issue is that our state companies lose money when you have free energy .. So it is prohibited and also if you want solar cells you have to pay extra money.. Insane century.
You are speculating since I have 2 koi pond and one is 4000 gall of water and they run on solar panels that cost me $60. Milking customers is Evil and Karma will take care of the rest.
Lol its funny how people are barely starting to come up with these ideas that were thought of and invented in the past i dont even need to look that up if you dont belive me you can go ahead😉
It is clearly stated that they don't claim anything, just made improvements to existing tech you Moonhead.Att all times a thought process must proceed speaking, you don't seem to be good at it.Stop throwing stones in the general direction, you're a big boy now.
Mom dad look! A water slide! NO TIMMY DONT!
Robbaz slacker. Get to work on from the depths. Lol just kidding. I don’t care that your slacking. Also I’m guessing this got recommended for you as well?
???? you here??
Hej! :D
i read that out in your voice
use the forbidden water slide
Fish come out the other end screaming "WHOOAAAH ...WHAT A RUSH !"
Or "That was awesome, let´s do that again!" and after few tries, they will jam it soo hard it will stop working.
Is it safe for them. The water inlet should be small that wont allow things other than water flow
Yea there could be a PVC mesh at the Canal Inlet, where only Water enters.
The mesh can be optimized for optimum flow.
Anyways, a great product and many many turbines can be placed one after the other all along the canal for more output.
Should be all the rave for salmon.
@@travellerquotes9076 if the inlet stopped the fish, i'm wondering if the fish would get stuck on the inlet. just like a tennis ball would get stuck to your home vacuum.
This will look good next to my Solar Roadway (tm) and my Hyperloop (c) station.
Haha! I don't think most of the commenters here get the reference.
LMAO
@@DecadantHandshake not a scam, a fantastic idea that doesn't work out due to just overzealousness. Most communities won't opt to put these in for every 60 homes all along the rivers they're built around. It also obviously only works if you have a river. Solar roadways didn't work out, and the sun is everywhere... this will see limited use most likely.
You forgot Fontus water bottles too
@@BeeBrained-PS99 Solar roadways seemed doomed from the start. Too expensive, hard to maintain, would get dirty, the glass would be slippery. It would actually be more effective to just build the solar panels directly above the road. Why not start with Southwest Parking lots? Shade the whole lot with solar panels and you'd be doing a public service while also making electricity.
The farm estate near me has had one of these for quite a few years except the turbine is upright, rather than on it's side like in this design. It's very impressive and generates a lot of electricity when the river is high. Only problem is that they needed a government grant to afford to install it. A dog got sucked through it on one of the shoots but he was absolutely fine.
That last sentence was a rollercoaster haha. Glad he's okay.
@@GBloxers Lol he actually looked like he'd enjoyed the experience
"Absolutely fine."
Ohhhh...that's just the sort of caper my dog would get up to, and then jump back in for another go.
omg I honestly was afraid for the doggo, I'm glad he's fine
1:51 "Cast on site by unskilled workers", not sure if typo or demonstrating the simplicity of the design.
It's obviously supposed to be a latter, but sounds more like a an insult :D
@@lrbarter your comment made my entire week. thank you
@bull shiyot no. not even a little bit
@@lrbarter "we threw the most incapable workers we could find at the project - and it still worked out just fine"
@bull shiyot how did you connected this with racism
It's not for somewhere like Chicago, but does seem like the answer for smaller towns.
The big step in 21st century will be to build up an efficient and intelligent infrastructure and storage sytem. I'm curious how gigantic companies who are offering limited ressources like oil will change their strategy and how they will make us pay for generating our own power in our backyard by wind and sun or river turbines in local cooperatives. The costs could be as low as only using infrastructure.
That is what I was thinking!
The Windy City? Oh we got a plan for that.
@@hurtigheinz3790 this is why we gotta stop giving away billions in subsidies to dirty energy and invest in renewables. The big dirty donors need to become irrelevant.
@@BenFrankarts We just need guarenteed compenstion for every kW/h being put into the grid. With this security everyone would start building his own "power plant". About ~15 years ago there a high and guarenteed compensation here in Germany.
Amazing how we suddenly have so many views and comments! And thank you for all of the advice!
I just want to clarify a few things I saw asked in the comments:
- We shot this footage during commissioning. When installing a hydropower turbine you first test it for a while at half the nominal flow. That's what you see passing through this turbine. It doesn't look very stable yet, as it needs additional flow for the vortex to stabilize itself (Think about how you get that sucking sound at the last few liters running from your bath tub). Full flow of this turbine is 1.8m3/s with a height difference of 1.7m. That gives 15kW of useful electric power with our efficiency of 50%.
- When we were finished shooting the video, we put back the trash rack (with a spacing between the bars of 10cm as that is the maximum debris size that can pass through) and the mesh that covers the whole basin. No children, dogs, pirates,... can fall in.
-60 homes can be powered in Chile with an average household power demand of 0.25 kW. The average in many European countries is 0.5 kW. The average in American homes could well be a few MW if the comments are to go by :P
-Yes, waterwheels have been done before, and turbines as well. We don't claim to have invented hydropower. We claim, however, that we have made this size of hydropower an interesting investment with a lower cost and a higher efficiency. Our hope is to offer a clean, eco-friendly alternative for investors, land owners, industries etc to generate power from the rivers that they have running in their neighborhood. As one of the co-founders, I can tell you that I enjoy nature, and that I want my kids growing up learning about and seeing technologies that try to work in harmony with it.
- Some rivers meander too much for our technology. These rivers aren't suitable. We know about this, thank you for mentioning it.
-We're not related to any kickstarter or crowdfund campaign. I made the video in my spare time as a hobby and I'm honestly a bit surprised that it became so popular. What I was hoping for, was to meet like minded people who want to help make our vision a reality. Affordable electrification for all without harming nature. A lot of people here have been really nice, with lots of helpful advice. Thank you for that! I believe we, as a society, can achieve anything if we just work together.
- Any good scientific peer review should scrutinize the numbers. I'm busy making a new video with full flow footage and footage of our inverter power readout. Please tell me what you'd like to see in there and I'll try and arrange it :)
- Last but not least: we're still in the testing phase. Currently we're checking all the systems and we're making sure this turbine can do what it promises. It seems to be holding up well against erosion and debris. We had some power cable heating, but got it solved. We will also be conducting fish friendliness tests. The whole design was based on the fish friendly design parameters of the Alden turbine Labs. We will validate those numbers. This model is now being worked on and we will be ready by July 2018 with our testing phase. When all of that is done, we will be ready to start helping people everywhere to develop their very own hydropower turbine and build their future!
Thank you for your attention, stay tuned for more updates!
Could you share an example project setting (e.g. water flow and vertical drop) and associated cost? I think we'd all know the costs would vary from one project to the next, but it would be really interesting to see an example. Thanks!
Turbulent Hydro your logo is familiar to me. Almost exactly like eucledion. search for it.
Something mus have made it appear in lots of people's recommended videos page
Dosadoodle our first 15kW is built for $5000/kW. With that our our customer should have a payback time of around 5 years. That Doñihue project runs with a flow of 1.8m3/s and a useful height difference of 1.7m. Now we're optimizing components and working with our suppliers to produce parts at a lower cost and consistent quality.
RJ Zipper I looked at it. It's also low poly and it's blue. That's all I can see similar?
Engineer here. This will be somewhat inefficient as plenty of energy goes into the wall as friction. However, I'd imagine that this is more fish friendly (although don't know by how much) and that the equipment should be cheaper to build and maintain than a more traditional hydro electric setup. The biggest obstacle, as far I can see, is to keep the concrete from corroding within the first year.
Architect here. There are lots of chemicals to prevent concrete from corroding. They are used in industrial buildings resisting the fricton and pressure caused by heavy equipments. They also smooth the surface and reduce fricton.
Austrian here. We have been building things like this since years. It got patented by an ami called Kenard D. Brown back in 1968 and realized by austrian inventor Franz Zotlöterer for the first time in 2003.
Here is the thing: Efficiency of 60% theoretically, but max. 48% de facto (I've also seen things with under 30%). Even simple water wheels are better than this.
The swiss company that installed this things with Zotlöterer got bankrupt in 2016.
Is Austrian a profession?
Well, i didn't want to write "biology student".
Are you a civil engineer?
i love how theres 0 guard rails and your ass can fall right into that thing lmao
True, needs a wire mesh around the top (maybe they removed it for the promo?)
Makes you wanna dump a 50 pound bag of cornstarch in there and see what happens.
@@korkee1111 oh god
Kristopher Hall also what if a tree branch gets dragged down the river into it, wire mesh on the sides, though that gets rid of the whole fish friendly thing. :(
just put some mesh over the top of it headass
works at night. works when wind isn't blowing. no battery. efficiency is very secondary. installation requirements are simple. regulation of voltage/amperage output important dynamically. you could distill water as a power sink if need be.... Cool stuff - wish you well in your projects :)
What about drought
Yup. Its an issue - and depending on the location, with more intermittency than a standard dam where they can maintain a higher head of water for longer. Our hydroelectric production reduces signficantly in places like CA when moisture in a year drops. But with this system, it's good while you've got it and flow is up.
Does NOT work, however, during drought. So, if we don’t get that part under control, these won’t matter much. @California @Navada
don't read others' comments eh ? :) And it's Nevada...
How is efficiency secondary?
imagine the energy u could make by installing this in billions of toilets
Depends on how well endowed you are. Will it suck or will it cut? Inquiring minds want to know.
Bikerchic that's a SHIT idea! No pun intended 😊
They said it could handle small rocks and sand. Not the massive logs in my toilet :(
RIGHT, AND THE TURDS GO THRU UNHARMED////
Right. However, due to the Corialis effect, in the southern hemisphere the flow would be anticlockwise,
which would cause the electrons from generation to run up your arse, and not into the grid.
I've watched so much random videos that now I'm getting recommended ads.
Guess I'll have to start saving up for a creek.
lol
1:52 Imagine being the guys that made this and being called unskilled :c
"and the simple concrete walls have been cast on site by unskilled workers" They were probably talking about the concrete walls at the "outlet" because the turbulent is already prefabricated.
you do realize what the term unskilled means right? It's not that they have no skills, it's that they aren't specialized in a field that requires education or practice i.e. welders, mechanics, engineers, doctors, etc. The point in the comment was that you don't need any specialized workers to help set up the power plants, therefore would be easy for a 3rd world country or smaller cities to bring one of these generators in and only requiring only people who can do basic construction worker level work to install it and get it working
This company is simply saying that they only want to pay their workers a buck or two above minimum wage. They're probably banking on getting private jobs. On federal jobs (and some state jobs) this work is done by carpenters, laborers, and/or Ironworkers that get paid prevailing wage, even with precast. Same with the part about hydro turbines being expensive to maintain and causing floods. I lived in Wenatchee for 30 years and most of these claims aren't real. The precast pieces are joined together by weld plates that need to welded together and patched back by a concrete finisher.
However in a typical precast yard, the company generally uses prefabbed formwork that's set by your typical entry level worker. Any precast yard that I've ever dealt with generally have a handful of carpenters that tell the grunts what to do.
This has to be one of five of the most brilliant things I have seen in over a decade. I'm floored just from the simplicity of it.
what were the other 4?
It looks like a turbo on a car engine, but it is a nice type of hydroelectric power. Just look at alternative water dam designs and you'll find many good solutions. This would be good if its cheaper and comparably efficient to solar. Also if the place doesn't receive adequate sunlight. But solar is becoming better and better every year and will likely become the dominate green power solution.
Great, now please put a cover on it.
Great. and few wire racks
Yeah! I dont want to fall inside it and drown
Or get ground up
I imagine the final product will have a grate or somthing to cover to top of the turbine
It has safety measures they were removed to display the system.
When I think back to a time three years ago, before Turbulent changed the world....................
Thanks Turbulent for covid 19!
@@sxullpunch638 except that Covid 19 didn't really change the world, the government's ridiculous, extreme, and ongoing reaction changed the world.
Woops, butterfly effect.
@@shelbyseelbach9568 Not sure in which country you live but in danger of generalization I'd say most countries didn't react fast enough and subsequently needed to address it with prolonged measures. Usually also because people didn't follow early measures.
@@vocassen isn't it funny that the flu kills the exact same group of people by the hundreds of thousands around the world every year but we don't shut down the entire world economy in response?
It's all ridiculous at every level.
The governments have served up the kool aid, and the people can't seem to get enough to drink. Just ridiculous.
One of these was built in my town in 1898. Awesome bit of kit!
Lol
When this appears in your recommended:
What have I -done- watched
Do fish get dizzy?
Fish love it..its like roller coaster for them..
Apparently, fish (at least most fish) are incapable of getting dizzy. It would really mess up their swimming if they did.
Bjarni Valur sounds good but I'm not a fish lol but what if they do? Hmmmmm
Vishal Jadhav I like roller coasters but not everybody does....so I'm just saying...what if...maybe if fish are similar? I've watched a lot of videos about things I never studied...and some animals make noises when hurt or disoriented....so maybe fish do as well and we just don't know...I heard lobsters scream hen boiled...
SDD525 I have seen that before...in freshwater sharks...I'm not an expert but I think that is a defense thing...when they turn and sleep for a few seconds....I'm sure other people will let you know what that means but also easy to look up on you tube
We are ready for this system, supporting this company is a step to sustainability for the planet
While this is a neat idea, it looks like it won't scale at all. This would be great for getting power to remote communities not already served by a grid, but not much else I think. I would _really_ play down the comparisons to traditional hydroelectric power, because those comparisons make your device looks really, really bad. Consider a more in depth comparison against the Hoover Dam and those transmission lines you crap on so much at the start of the video.
The Hoover Dam produces 2,080,000 kW. Your system produces 15 kW. So to replace a large dam like the Hoover, you need 138,666.7 of your units. Assuming you could pack them in super densely on a river, spaced every 100 yards, you'd need almost 9,000 miles of river to produce the same power, more than twice the length of the longest river on the planet. But you'll never get your units installed that densely, so you'd need WAY more than that. Not happening. So this literally cannot replace large scale hydroelectric power.
What about more localized power? Let's say we want to power a small American town, population 10,000. We'll be generous and only consider residential power. Let's assume there are an average of 3 people per home, for 3,333 homes to power. The average American home uses 900 kWh of power each month. Your unit produces 10,800 kWh per month, so can power 12 houses (not the 60 you claim, that was dishonest). So to power the small town, you need 278 of your units. _Just_ for the residential power. You also get zero reserve capacity to handle surges, so you either still need those expensive transmission lines to provide power from elsewhere when needed, or overprovision your hydroelectric system, or build energy storage. This is getting really expensive, really fast, and is going to be well outside the budget of what a town of this size could do. Assuming the tax burden is spread evenly, each household would be responsible for 8.3% of the cost of one of your units. You don't mention how much it cost to build these, but my guess is that's not going to be pocket change.
Don't interpret this as me saying your technology is bad. I think it's a nice idea, but you're barking up the wrong tree comparing yourself to hydroelectric dams. Play up the way this can power remote communities with limited access to power, that's where this technology will shine. If you come out swinging with "we're so much better than traditional hydro power", then prepare for the internet debunking brigade to rip your claims to shreds.
Hey check out my new channel
Agreed. And we are not evening talking about industrial usage yet...
Output Coupler Nice argumentation!
Output Coupler good arguement, however the 60 homes might still be somewhat true as less developed countries would probably use much less electricity than that Americans or Europeans would.
While this may be true, the argument of this being an alternative to huge dams speaks to it serving larger communities. Smaller damn for smaller communities don't produce the negative side effects that the huge dams used in this video do. Additionally, it also poses other safety issues. While safe for mall fish, I'd hate to see what a larger animal (human child) would do when falling into a turbine. They would likely not fit through and could drown since the current wouldn't allow escape. Plenty of unresolved issues and false arguments present, as interesting as the idea is for the far future when these issues are resolved, etc...
Looks good, I'm a water treatment engineer so used to seeing centrifugal pumps, same principle in reverse and much much bigger ha, awsome.
Interesting to see how you will reduce errosion of impellor, a constant pain of mine...
Good luck!
Don Lewis slower rotation speeds and a polyurethane coating do the trick!
made the thing out of titanium - problem solved
MAybe all water treatment plants could be self powering.
Replace when worn.
Great idea!! No offense...Polyurethane isn't a safe material...regardless of any environmentally safe claims that have been made. Nature (oceans) have enough nuclear waste, pharmaceuticals and other chemicals they already have to deal with. They don't need another bad element being purposely introduced. You should consider something organic in nature as a substitute. I realize that the replacement of the propellers will need changed more frequently, however, that gives more job security...and if they're as cost effective as you claim, then why not sacrifice a small margin of profit to ensure the well being of the environment? Thank you in advance :)
I think its cool how some people are accually doing something to help the environment now
How abrasion resistant are the turbine surfaces, what about flood conditions with high sediment load?
SDD525 Teflon is harmful to the environment.
Teflon is not abrasion resistant but it would reduce the friction between the water and the blades, however i wouldn't think the teflon would help much at all in this situation.
the presures are low, so cavitation wont be a big problem
0bloodshot0 oh I totaly agree, I simply meant on whether Teflon would help. But I think even at low pressure there could be some serious erosion to the concrete under the turbine.
Dane Jones a turbine housing out of concrete sounds stupid indeed :D
One of the major downsides is this system is that it requires a consistently fast moving body of water that stays at a fairly constant level year round (no significant droughts or floods). Also, a settling chamber would be very useful to prevent excessive wear and tear on the turbine by debris and sediments. Overall, this product _might_ have _some_ usefulness in very specific scenarios.
I'm thinking smaller towns in rural areas could be more self reliant using something like this. this could be useful on some of the large creeks and rivers in the North Carolina mountains (where I live)
I wrote a paper in college back I think in 87 that was a similar idea using tidal change/surge to fill basins that then discharge - or like this idea it could go both ways - in and out out. Very cool idea and video!
Fish waterpark
Wheeeeeeeeeee! (that was a salmon. Very distinctive scream those)
We can charge the fish admission and have them pay for it.
The fish will be fine. It's just a natural whirlpool above the rapidly spinning blades.
From what I understand, the speed of the blades are set by the speed of the flow, so a fish caught in the system will be moving at the same speed as the flow of water so it seems ok. But i wonder, why can't they just put grid or something like that on the entrance to prevent fish to go there in the first place?
(sorry for my english in advance)
"Friendly" to small fish, not so "friendly" to large fish. Or logs, branches, stones, etc.
A grate could be installed at the intake, slightly convex and with a grid open enough to prevent debris clogging but tight enough to block entry of large fish/objects.
Much reason to continued the optimization of this. All the best...
yes, start with the inlet that seems to be completely disrupting the water's flow, which I can only imagine reduces the efficiency over the lifetime.
I dont see this solving every problem but i could certainly see it helping in smaller community's
60 homes per turbine?
Gonna have to fill a whole river with these things.
Think big apartments..
This seems like a good idea, especially for small cities and rural communities far away from any electric facility. Hope you the best, can't wait to see these being installed here in Italy! Wish you best luck!
Turbulent is ready to change the world! Congrats!
Let's see some DATA... you're generating electricity... anyone got a meter? Let's see numbers!
angurisloud agreed.very small for the stated output
Not really. Look at a 20KW home standby genny, maybe 2x or 3x 4' or so. And the fact that it's low pressure will limit the output too. If it's truly putting out what they claim it's a good idea. Will depend on water flow in relation to output too.
This is already in use in many parts of India especially in ghats.. I ve seen it in private farms in Kerala and Mangalore while trekking
Let us assume that the cross section is 0.5m^2 (just for the sake of simplicity).
15,000W = 15,000 kg*m^2/s
We divide this by the cross section:
15,000 kg*m^2/s / 5.0m^2 = 30,000 kg/s
And because 1,000 kg of water equals roughly to 1m^3 we get 30m^3/s
Now we divide this again by the cross section:
30m^3/s / 0.5m^2 = 60m/s
This equals to *216km/h* of necessary water velocity.
So no. The turbine shown in this video will not provide anything near 15kW of electricity.
EDIT:
Sorry, my calculation is bollox. I totally neglected the potential energy.
Assumption:
0.5m^2 cross section
5m/s flow rate (18km/h)
1m fall height
5m/s * 0.5m^2 = 2.5m^3/s
This equals 2,500kg/s
Kinetic energy:
E_kin = 1/2 * m * v^2
1/2 * 2,500kg/s * (0,5m/s)^2 = *312.5W*
Potential energy:
E_pot= m * g * h
2,500kg/s * 9,81m/s^2 * 1m = *24,525W*
Total engery:
315.5W + 24,525W = *24,837W*
So even with half the fall hight, you would expect a reasonable output.
Your power equation don't make sense to me, how did you get it?
Based on your unit it appears (kg/s) * (m^2), ie mass flow rate x Area, but that's not power.
Needs safety revisions but what a great piece of work. Kudos.
Im in Chile right now and I visited the turbulent to see this amazing work. Chile has a lot of places without power and this is a great invention. Nice job.
is this gonna become a worldwide thing or is it another one of those brilliant inventions that would change the world for the better that we hear of once and never ever again for some reason?
Awaiting thunderf00t...
Chad so glad i found your comment. TF would rip this a new one, as it so needs
lol true
Not if his work on the "perfect" battery is anything to go by.
James Baker i must have missed something. A perfect battery.... they found a way to harness unicorn farts????
That's simply the title of the video. I have no input into video titles.
Freaking awesome,these turbines should be put everywhere possible,what a great idea! Way to go!
I'd like to see this idea do really well, especially as you genuinely seem to consider ecological issues. Personally I think it's great and wish you the best of luck with it. we need lots and lots more of 'em!
This is amazing. I live next to a creek and would love one of these. Would be sweet if they were small enough for a single home.
There's already tons of small hydro-electric generators available for single houses with varying degrees of sophistication. They're not gravity powered though, they're generally current powered, which provides a lot less energy compared to typical dams, so whether or not they're worth it depends on what you plan on powering.
British video Allu Arjun
rivers, streams, creeks, etc are all "gravity powered". A dam just increases the pressure difference between the upstream and downstream side of the turbine which allows for higher flow rates and more power generated from the same river, stream or creek.
You can make something simple with a fan mechanism wired into a car alternator If you know what your doing !!!
For $5000 you can get one. Then another $5k for installation. And then you can run your coffee maker your 1cu/ft fridge...
Those workers you mention were certainly not unskilled. If one does not know how to install and reinforce concrete structures don't expect them to last.
somebody is going to fall in that and get shreaded like in hungary in 2009
...what happened in Hungary in 2009?
Zac Howarth poor kid fell into a turbine like this at an aqua park and died
Just cover it, and all the problems of things falling into it will be gone.
@@MasterCriminal0 Why is a thing like this not covered in a WATER PARK !
Pass through unharmed on the video. Like to see a real test with some koi. Or a gold fish.
Simple is not the same as easy. A beautiful idea, well done.
Cool concept. Needs some safety grating/ covers though. It needs a grate for the inlet, and a full cover for the top
Yes, I thought the same thing. While it is fish safe (which hydro electric is not), it could be dangerous if a person got caught in it. Great invention btw.
Ok.
Oh I guess while they're at it put a cover on the rivers and dams out there also. Probably be better to just wrap everyone in cotton wool or lock them in doors can't protect everyone from the dangerous outside world.
Thought the exact same thing. Looks cool
Ľuboš Rybanský they said it can power 60 homes. Sounds like plenty of power for a small cost and size
Yhe that swirl looks super "safe" for fish haha.
There are swirls in nature which adds up O2 in water
@@omshingade291 oh yhe def, like im not saying that fish who get tossed around in strong currents down a small lake with big rocks in it is safe for it either 😅 but thats nature vs nature. This man made mini tornado doesnt look safe. Thats it really😉 and it might even be the best roller coaster ride a fish will ever get and also be 100% safe.
I sure hope so hehe
@@Knasern I mean fish go through huge industrial dams and turn out fine right now. I imagine that is worse than this tbh.
@@Knasern youd be suprised, if you ever go diving and get caught in an underwater current its weird as hell but your always going with the flow of water, the only risk is when its just openned or just closed as the blades wont be moving as the same speed of the water due to resistance and inertia =)
fish will have PTSD
I see one simple mindset here that maybe most of us ignore all this time, that is nature provide so many things for us to be arranged properly for human being convenience without making any destruction to the nature itself. Good job sir. Keep going dont stop.
I can't help but notice all the water that isn't going through the turbine.
Jay Turberville yep it would be more efficient at the bottom in the middle of the lake or river your exactly right
Is that one in Chile not dangerous? What if someone falls in? Aren't there any safety measures, like a simple mesh or something to stop someone's fall?
technically they are saving the planet by jumping in
Read the first comment
Who is dumb enough to fall into this? If you are dumb enough to fall into this, you deserve anything that will happen to you if you fall in.
Great! How no one could think of it before!
Definitely should cover up access to the turbine. Kids and some adults are stupid.
Don't worry, they'll never build these in CA.
Seems interesting. But I doubt it produces 15kw. MAYBE if it's a fast moving river or stream but like other things that are too good to be true I doubt this will work as intended. But I would be more than happy to see you prove me wrong.
Assumption:
0.5m^2 cross section
5m/s flow rate (18km/h)
1m fall height
5m/s * 0.5m^2 = 2.5m^3/s
This equals 2,500kg/s
Kinetic energy:
E_kin = 1/2 * m * v^2
1/2 * 2,500kg/s * (0,5m/s)^2 = *312.5W*
Potential energy:
E_pot= m * g * h
2,500kg/s * 9,81m/s^2 *1m = *24,525W*
Total engery:
315.5W + 24,525W = *24,837W*
So even with half the fall hight, you would expect a reasonable output.
Yes that sort of thing is quite doable and has been done for a long time, small hydro. You can buy a small home sized or medium sized hydro generator, you just need some plastic pipe and access to a stream, quite sufficient to power a home if there is adequate water flow. The problem is there are very few sites and few opportunities. I've lived in rural areas and you have a very hard time finding a site suitable for this type of hydro. So it is a bit player and always will be a bit player in the energy game. Great for people who are so lucky to have a good site nearby though.
Keyboard runner. That's only assuming *100%* efficiency extraction. Now what percentage of that 24,837W do you expect will be converted into actual electricity?
Michael Zhou
Since I have no data about the quality of the turbine, I will make no statement about its efficiency.
Besides that, the turbine is _rated_ to 15kW so it will only produce this power under optimal environment.
Sounds like efficiency for these systems are about 35%.
And on the plus side, you can install one lower down the river and even more if the river falls. Looks great!
the flood is caused by expand farmland and removing wetland, not building dams
Yes, but actually no.
When the dams get over pressured, they have no choice but to release all the water, flash flooding the area. _But_ it is true that removing wetland is what causes them to get over stocked in rainstorms.
@@Ranstone Yes, but actually no.
When do you think the dams get over pressured?
Amazing it would do wonders in countries like India where rural population is still struggling to get electricity, though the Modi government is very supportive and solar power is becoming quite popular but this can this kind of decentralized hydro power will help immensely.
solar is easyer for them I think.
It wouldn't "do wonders" in India. There's too many people. This thing only powers 60 houses. India has 1.24 billion people. Conventional hydro-electric is the only way to use water effectively.
+moncorp1 Inc Remember that a huge power plant costs a shitload of money to build, requires costly maintenance, you have to transmit some of the power a long distance which requires a high cost infrastructure, etc.
This small scale solution is cheap to build with a low maintenance cost and you can do it on a stream. On a river you can slowly build up the number of small generators instead of a big up front cost of a huge power generator.
Yeah Dan but between this or solar..this needs a stream. That is a pretty big requirement.
I bet this is 100 times cheaper then solar panels.
Scale fast to Africa, the technology is awesome and there are people who need it most, keep it up.
i need it here in the philippines.. a lot of mountain villages dont have access to power.. how can i avail this?
please came to sri lanka and, start your that project...
how could people give this the thumbs down .
I wonder if this is cheaper than 60 homes with solar panels on them? I priced solar panels and they are outrageous price and repairs are not cheap.
The Game This won't heat the planet up solar panels are junk. Look at what solar farms do too the environment. They fry bird's in flight.
Dennis Dennis you have personally caused more death than thousands of solar panels. Your pet cat is also killing too many birds. Stop being stupid and go read a bit.
Dennis You're a moron if you confuse solar panels with solar thermal plants.
空軍パイロット Any solar reflection off any metal or glass is going to be hotter than our natural surroundings. If you measure the temperature on piece of land with tree's and totally natural surroundings. Then cut all down and put in solar panels. Thanks temperature of that piece of property would triple in temperatures.
I will analyze your arguments for you, since they lack cohesiveness.
Your first comment is arguing against solar thermal plants, shown by the statement, "They fry bird's in flight."
Your second comment is arguing against deforestation and urbanization. You mistakenly identified the cause of the temperature rise as being from solar panels, rather than the removal of foliage.
In case you are wondering why anything I said matters, it is because The Game proposed putting solar panels on top of houses. You said this is wrong because solar thermal plants, a completely different technology, hurt the environment. Then, you said that solar farms raise temperatures by causing the destruction of foliage, even though The Game asked about having solar panels placed onto existing artificial structures. Deforestation would not be a factor here.
Just another francis turbine without draft tube and lower head.
So nothing like a francis turbine then? :)
al35mm almost
I must agree with Apolly.
It is most similar to the francis turbine as the input stream is tangential and the output stream axial, it's just a low pressure version
It's maybe just a simplified Fourneyron turbine (1832)
Scotch Turbine? Neat, used to power canalboat lift planes on the Morris Canal in New Jersey in early 19th century. Your application to hydropower is rad.
What about extreme cold temperatures? What is the limits of handling cold temps?
Moving water wont freeze
@@fog1962 But ice may form in the structure since it's not fully submerged. Then this ice may break and fall on the turbine, possibly damaging it, or altering the flow
let's see the R&D numbers. It seems rad, but so do fairy tales
Entire industrial cotton mills with all their machinery were once run from such small streams - the principle is well proven
Spaniel Inquisition - Note that Victorian water wheels were vertical (horizontal like Turbulent's is less efficient), and that they only needed to yield around 4-6 kilowatts; the average first world home needs about _30 KW_ each day. OP's right, some numbers would be nice.
We're making a video with some more details. What kind of numbers would you like to see and how can we best present them to you all?
hmm, I think you have your kW and kWh mixed up. An EU or US household will have an avg Power demand of 0.5kW. That's about 12kWh per day
enlightenmentfun the key thing is that none of your appliances will be on all the time. That brings down the average power demand significantly. Also in these parts of Chile, they don't often use an aircon. That being said, in the video we state that it can power up to 60 houses (as is the case in many parts of Chile), if you have a higher energy demand, less houses can be powered.
Big industry dont like clever ideas like this that take control away from them. I hope your effort takes off.
power FOR the people! Fight the oil barrons! the banking cartel! it starts with being energy independent!
food, livelihoods, sense of community and purpose surely will follow suit.
Nice...until the alligator chases the fish into the turbine. Instant gator smoothie!
ManofChrist101. Grates would solve that.
I like the idea of an Alligator smoothie, that should be quite healthy.
I legit had an idea very similar to this in elementary school. When someone asked "where do you want to live when you are older?" I always said next to a river to put in a water power next to it! I'm glad someone had the same idea and a better mind for energy than I to make it a reality!
Why is a water turbine so politically charged? Sure they're trying to sell their idea with a feel good video and catchy title, but I don't think this video is saying this alternative is the only/best form of hydropower. Why not develop/install units like this: they might meet someone's objective for power. Hater's are going to hate, articulate criticism is at least interesting...
Lol, remember solar roads? Yeah, it's that again. Lots of unrealistic promises.Sounds nice, but no real content.
NOT depending on your government is a CRIME............
and still stupid.
plis talk english
The reason is simple. Because so many of these "idea videos" promise checks that they can't cash. One only needs to look at self filling water bottles, underwater breathers, solar roadways, spinning solar cells, waterotor, and the list goes on. Simply put they aren't selling a water turbine. What they are selling is a idea and most ideas turn out to be nothing more than a pipe dream. Now you know why they don't site actual installations nor any scientifically verified specs.
Just waiting for the inevitable Thunderfoot debunk
I tried to put together a similar design myself but the locations were more central as they had their own water supply. Good idea. My design is of course merely a dream and quelled almost instantly. Good luck providing for those war torn societies.
"by unskilled workers" wow, you really had to do em like that lol
Not sure why everyone's getting tweaked by that word. It's a common term and it just means you don't need much special training to do this. It means you'll be able to find people to construct it without difficulty.
Its not even an insult. I have a university degree and I am an unskilled worker when it comes to construction.
Nancy Pelosi: "Yes, but how can we tax it?"
The Artful Dodger
We tax rich people, to redistribute the money to poor people and equalize the playing field.
For example we tax rich bankers, then use the tax money to build such power plants in communities that need it. Thanks to the electricity, the local kids can read and study, go to college, become rich, and then they pay taxes.
Do you know how rich you can become when you make the rules ?
The rich make the rules.
Exactly
They won't cause the 10 years it will take you to do all the environmental studies, and file all the paper work, will cause you to just give up.
What a nice work! This idea could be a solution to spare some power for tiny towns in developing countries where they can't afford to a huge dam.
Ok sir, bt how to transmit the power? It also needs same power distribution lines?
Just plug it in to the grid. (first build grid)
Yes but a lot less of them, since these can be deployed closer to the intended customers.
Less power lines means less environmental impact as well as higher efficiency overall since the majority of power loss is in the transmission line length.
Since this turbine isn't producing much energy, you can use household power cables for distribution, and you don't have to use transformers.
Quite cheap.
The purpose of something like this is to power a remote village that is not well served by the existing grid. It's not an alternative to large hydro, or grid-scale power.
Only local powerlines.....
Or you know... You could just make a wooden water-wheel and connect it to a generator...
That is actually quite inefficient because there are a lot more moving parts that waste energy.
@@joshuawhite3411 hmmm, yes I see. Big wheel + rod connected to a generator. Where are all of the extra moving parts at, again?
@@admadea simply laying it horizontal and directing the water into it with angular momentum the direction of the wheel is pretty much what they did here. So it's like a water wheel but more efficient, and smaller. But as far as moving parts are concerned I think the only difference here seems to be that the turbine and generator are all one unit instead of a wheel, a rod, and a generator.
@@korkee1111 except, as actual engineers and physicists have pointed out in the comments on this video, you lose around 30 - 40% of the energy from the flow of the water being directed into the curved wall, through friction. This is a low efficiency system, only really useful in situations where alternatives like a traditional waterwheel aren't feasible.
@@admadea @Adam DeWolfe A traditional waterwheel isn't any better
1. Easily destroyable and flamable considering it's made out of wood
2. You need to build a building, some sort of water collecting machine, or a giant dock thing next to the waterwheel
3. Again, of course there's going to be energy loss, however, this machine works in more scenarios than a classic waterwheel (waterwheels don't work with strong winds)
4. They didn't say this technology was better than the waterwheel, it honestly looks like a prototype for it tbh. They want to reduce cost as much as possible and still have a efficient energy machine
You can have multiple turbines in a row similar to canal locks, good luck, great concept.
We should be doing something like this to drain all the kinetic energy out of all rivers.
That "kick starter" music always makes me smell bullshit.
I would buy this for my off grid house in a second this should be one of your markets :)
I'D LOVE TO FIND OUT HOW MUCH THIS SYSTEM COSTS ??? @#$% $$$$$ .... ???
And this is different from an ancient water wheel how?
Right on, its amazing how many neigh sayer's flock to condemn these things, imagine if the Write brothers, Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla listened to them, we'd still be burning candles!
This one has glitter
Um...it makes electricity instead of grinding flour?
I think water wheel being larger has more air resistance, hence losing quite substantial % energy. Also this one has higher efficiency in translating the water motion to electricity.
Alvin...wind resistance on water wheels are negligible. They aren't spinning at 40,000rpm....they are barely moving.
You could put a series of these all along the same water course. Producing as much power as you want.
You seem to be developing the tub wheel, 2000+ years after it was invented! Tubulent :-)
www.pontiachistory.org/wp-content/uploads/Mill-Machinery/tub.jpg
Meh, a modern gas turbine is also loosely based on the old steam engines. That's how humanity progresses.
1:59 dont looks fish frendly ^^
Keep on your project. I'll keep looking for turbine updates. Best wishes for your success.
Ummm well i see an unused idea for this product that does seem disgusting yet would provide electrical energy. Large city sewer sysyems carry large steady volumes of water and well other things of course yet the potential to generate electricity using this product is thete is it not? Just change the design to allow maintenance and up keep that diverts sewer away when needed. Could even be developed into a electrical generating system to power superconductor separators to remove all pollution even bacteria and viruses to generate clean drinking water? A different way to process waste water while producing electrical energy to power a grid. 😊
Indigo Dragon71 , sewer is heavy and needs energy to move it, it does not have differential height to extract energy
that my friend is a billion dollar idea...not sure if the adequate slope would be there. it would take lots of money to develop and the people that would build it and want to go down and service it when needed but it could definitely work!
So... the same as many "evil dams" (with a canal) but in little.
If you want to have a reliable source of water to keep the turbine going you still need to build some kind of water reservoir upstream. You can't trust the river to always keep the needed volume flow.
+SDD525 Hydroelectrics canal-based (like this but in huge) don't flood any area.
+Alvaro Díaz True, otherways you are just paying for a non-constant energy production like solar or eolic.
Also, don't get me wrong, this is a neat idea. Since a long time small and micro Pelton turbine generators have been used to power isolated communities, but a high pressure differential was needed. Those are also relative inexpensive to build. If your terrain does not give you that sweet water drop of high potential energy but you have a decent water flow, then this type of turbine can work on flatter terrains.
+SDD525 So, as i said in the first place, this concept is just a canal-based hydroelectic but in little.
Dams are not required.
I had an idea like this a little while ago. Rather ingenious use of water. Thank you, assuming you implement it.
r/iamsmart
laughed at "fish friendly"
😂😂😂
but if you happen to be that one fish in the school of fish that is a little bit heavier then the other fish, and they tease you. Now you come to the fish friendly vortex and ... "i have a bad feeling about what's going to happen here...."!
Only trouble is... Local state/county's won't let ya touch any rivers or creeks to use your idea!! That makes it a done deal in the USA!!
But hydraulic fracturing companies can freely destroy the creeks, the environment, by draining the fracking backflow birne into the rivers.
Same here .. But main issue is that our state companies lose money when you have free energy .. So it is prohibited and also if you want solar cells you have to pay extra money.. Insane century.
Andrej Passco Which country?
Slovakia
It all looked promising in 2017 already. Now you are proving it works in practice you guys.
Awesome design and practial! 💧⚡👌
And the cost is of course under $1000 to make it worth.
You are speculating since I have 2 koi pond and one is 4000 gall of water and they run on solar panels that cost me $60. Milking customers is Evil and Karma will take care of the rest.
you are an idiot of the lowest calibre
You know how things work, nice
We also have DIY options if you want to limit costs of course.
I think he just dug a hole in the garden, that's about 60 dollar for the shovel.
Lol its funny how people are barely starting to come up with these ideas that were thought of and invented in the past i dont even need to look that up if you dont belive me you can go ahead😉
I swear these people act like they have invented a breakthrough and world saving idea...lmao
It is clearly stated that they don't claim anything, just made improvements to existing tech you Moonhead.Att all times a thought process must proceed speaking, you don't seem to be good at it.Stop throwing stones in the general direction, you're a big boy now.
this will be wonderful in small rural villages.
This wont be accepted by greedy businessman
Like the ones ruling and ruining millions in colombia.
"average household power demand of 0.25 kW". So 250 W. You know my desktop computer has a 400W power supply. ...
@Veseliy P Family and friends maybe, but not 60 houses in the first world.
It's been a long time since a video on RUclips has given me some hope.
you need significant drop