And yet he didn't register windbelt.com or .org, which is too bad, because it's such a great name and a good place for people to learn more about it. I guess it's quite clear he's not in it for the money, though.
How is this related to the resonance frequency of the belt? Is the system efficient only at certain frequencies? Do you need to select a belt to match current wind conditions?
You can probably change the resonance frequency by dynamically adjusting the tightness... It seems possible to make a rudimentary mechanical device that would do this.
I wonder how much power it would generate if you had a gazillion of these things lining our major highways. I bet there's nearly a constant 10mph breeze from all those cars.
1. This method wouldn't work in heavy traffic.
2. That "nearly constant 10mph breeze" is improving fuel efficiency for the cars behind you through reduced wind resistance.
3. A similar idea for generating power from traffic is through the use of speed bumps as power generators. But that doesn't work either. Here's an interesting article from wired: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/06/44518
What is your objective? If your objective is to help the environment, then this won't work; you are replacing coal/nuclear-generated electricity with gasoline-powered electricity, using a combination of of extremely inefficient mechanisms.
If your goal is to get free electricity by leaching off of cars, without regard to the environment, then it might work. But, there is a huge fixed cost to manufacture, transport, install, and test the machinery, and a non-negligible variable cost in maintaining the system.
Your latter comment would be one use. There are a lot of ways to recapture wasted energy (such as all the wind that cars generate when they go by). If this wind turbine can generate electricity from just a little wind, then highways are a great candidate!
The wind cars generate is not causally related to fossile fuel. Solar driven cars would also cause wind. And even now, generating additional energy from burning the same amount of fossile fuel can hardly be bad for the environment.
It isn't the same amount of fuel. If the car's engine is going to power something else besides the car, it is going to have to work harder.
Imagine the car is running in a vacuum and gets 30MPG. Now, add normal air resistance. It will not get 30MPG anymore. Now, add something else that further increases wind resistance. The car will get even fewer miles per gallon.
Wind power works by creating wind resistance. In order for there to be _less_ air resistance with them installed, they would have to be replacing something that caused even more wind resistance. But, that seems unlikely.
I don't really think that batteries are so necessary, and this development is phenomenal.
This is huge. It means wind is cheaper than nuclear, even with most subsidies.
We don't need batteries -- Arthur Rosenfeld has done work going way back that shows how distribution isn't a problem for windpower. That's a widespread myth, perpetuated by media echo chambers, funded by big business.
Did you know that superconducting power lines are commercially feasible, right now, for high capacity lines? Negawatt proposals account for a large part of the problem, if you make distribution efficient. And it can be made very efficient using superconducting lines.
For the brief periods where the world's overall wind production is low, if wind ever takes over most of the grid (it probably won't, considering the political dynamics), there is already a very effective storage technology -- liquid hydrogen. It has a practically limitless capacity (just add more tanks), and it avoids the toxicity problem of batteries, and it avoids the materials problem of fuel cells (still, nobody has found something cheap to replace platinum.)
Until hydrogen is stored in a solid material, using what some would call nanotech but what I call physics, it isn't going to be common. This isn't to say this is far off, just the way I see it coming -- with knowledge gleaned from physics PhDs working on the problem.
But the simple answer is 'yes'. Hydrogen could make an excellent base for a battery.
Right, but could this type of small-scale generator partially alleviate the distribution problem? I think that's one of the main points of this invention...
The issue with distribution is getting power from where there is wind to where there is not. It is not about just making the generation system distributed, though that would also be a good thing.
"When used judiciously, swearing can be hilarious, poignant, and uncannily descriptive. More than any other form of language, it recruits our expressive faculties to the fullest: the combinatorial power of syntax; the evocativeness of metaphor; the pleasure of alliteration, meter, and rhyme; and the emotional charge of our attitudes, both thinkable and unthinkable. It engages the full expanse of the brain: left and right, high and low, ancient and modern. Shakespeare, no stranger to earthy language himself, had Caliban speak for the entire human race when he said, "You taught me language, and my profit on't is, I know how to curse."
wow thats really cool. between this and dean kamen's stirling engine, i have a feeling the third world is in for some major changes in the next decade or two.
According to the article, the problem it is solving is generating small amounts of power inexpensively and reliably. It would power those LED lights which are used to allow people in developing countries to read at night.
You seem to think that this is a small-scale proof of concept even though there is no reason to think that this is anything but the full sized device.
He doesn't claim nor does it seem credible that there is a particular advantage to this technology on larger scales. Bearing friction, which he cites as a problem at the small scale, is not such a big issue for larger generators.
