# Thread: Kinetic Energy Storage

1. Is there any advantage to spinning (accelerating) perimeter cross blades as illustrated here:

http://elanetics.com/turbinearray.html

by their tips (by the magnetic coupling of center blades) as opposed to spinning them individually from the center with a generator/motor. Same energy required for both methods?

Need to know if this unique coupling plus unique magnetic involute gear configuratioin is worth anything. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Don

2.

3. I would say that the torque applied on the shafts of the outer blades would me much less than that of the torque of the motor driven inner blade. The inner and outer blades could not be coupled magnetically without some loss of energy between them. Because of this I would think it would require more energy to power each blade by a motor, even using magnetic bearings.

If this were used to generate electricity, remember that the total amount of energy generated will always be less than the energy applied to the system. We can convert one form of energy into another form, but the total amount of energy used or converted will remain the same. However, there will always be useful energy lost due to heat created within the system, so its efficiency will never be 100%.

It's an interesting idea, though.

4. I am not sure the device has anything to do with kinetic energy principles. The magnetic coupling may simply be a device to reduce friction and/or vibration.

We're just guessing. No doubt the engineers who designed the system could give you the right answer.

5. Originally Posted by SteveF
I am not sure the device has anything to do with kinetic energy principles. The magnetic coupling may simply be a device to reduce friction and/or vibration.

We're just guessing. No doubt the engineers who designed the system could give you the right answer.
Unless they've changed the principles that's not at all correct. Storing kinetic energy by rotating large masses very quickly is the basis of the technology. No offense by the way. Anyway, any replies to the actual question?

6. Originally Posted by dap
Is there any advantage to spinning (accelerating) perimeter cross blades as illustrated here:

http://elanetics.com/turbinearray.html

by their tips (by the magnetic coupling of center blades) as opposed to spinning them individually from the center with a generator/motor. Same energy required for both methods?

Need to know if this unique coupling plus unique magnetic involute gear configuratioin is worth anything. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Don
It's pretty obvious to me what they are trying to do with this design. It's an attempt to increase the storage capacity (mass) of a flywheel by breaking that mass up into individual turbine fan blades rather than making a single solid wheel which is more prone to self-destruction at high speeds.

It doesn't appear to be the most practical solution to the problem, though.

With that said, let's look at your specific question - single motor/generator driving the central turbine and magnetically coupled vs one placed at each of the individual rotors.

A single motor would be less expensive to build, operate and maintain than five would. And I'm pretty sure that's the only reason they've taken that approach.

The only thing I can say beyond that is if they're looking for investment money, I wouldn't give them mine. :wink: There are more practical designs out there already. For one thing, there's going to be some stuttering of energy transfer due to rotational lags in both the 'charging' and 'discharging' modes. In other words, moments when the polarity of the different blades are in conflict rather than a smooth transfer of energy, especially at higher loading/discharging levels.

7. Originally Posted by Old Geezer

It's pretty obvious to me what they are trying to do with this design. It's an attempt to increase the storage capacity (mass) of a flywheel...
That's not obvious to me because if you are designing a flywheel I don't think you make long slender blades. You make a sturdy wheel that can spin at high speed with low windage loss and you concentrate the mass at the perimeter for higher moment of inertia. In other words, you make it look like a flywheel.

The invention clearly has to do with coupling some rotor blades without a mechanical connection. Why you would want to do that, I don't know.

8. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by Old Geezer

It's pretty obvious to me what they are trying to do with this design. It's an attempt to increase the storage capacity (mass) of a flywheel...
That's not obvious to me because if you are designing a flywheel I don't think you make long slender blades. You make a sturdy wheel that can spin at high speed with low windage loss and you concentrate the mass at the perimeter for higher moment of inertia. In other words, you make it look like a flywheel.

The invention clearly has to do with coupling some rotor blades without a mechanical connection. Why you would want to do that, I don't know.
They are simply taking a novel approach in spreading the mass out into those blades - and they are using blades only because people can easily visualize how each of them would have an opposite magentic pole at each end.

I was simply trying to not be so blunt earlier but it's a very poor design and seems to me nothing more than an attempt to impress prospective investers.

and I agree with you perfectly about standard flywheel design. That's exactly why I said there are much better things out there already. :wink:

9. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by Old Geezer

It's pretty obvious to me what they are trying to do with this design. It's an attempt to increase the storage capacity (mass) of a flywheel...
That's not obvious to me because if you are designing a flywheel I don't think you make long slender blades. You make a sturdy wheel that can spin at high speed with low windage loss and you concentrate the mass at the perimeter for higher moment of inertia. In other words, you make it look like a flywheel.

The invention clearly has to do with coupling some rotor blades without a mechanical connection. Why you would want to do that, I don't know.
The blades are designed to operate in a vacuum. And the concept for the base design are blades. The sight anticipates a conventional flywheel design with 80% of the mass to exist at the fulcrum. What's obvious is that there is no current product. I'm just trying to figure out if the general base concept is sound. Whith those clarifications is the technology still viable or competitive?

don

10. Originally Posted by dap

The blades are designed to operate in a vacuum.
I was about to say you are nuts because they called it a turbine and a turbine in a vacuum is nonsensical. Then I looked at the web site and saw that it did talk about operating in a vacuum. So now I think it is the inventor who is nuts. But you're still nuts, too.

11. Originally Posted by dap
Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by Old Geezer

It's pretty obvious to me what they are trying to do with this design. It's an attempt to increase the storage capacity (mass) of a flywheel...
That's not obvious to me because if you are designing a flywheel I don't think you make long slender blades. You make a sturdy wheel that can spin at high speed with low windage loss and you concentrate the mass at the perimeter for higher moment of inertia. In other words, you make it look like a flywheel.

The invention clearly has to do with coupling some rotor blades without a mechanical connection. Why you would want to do that, I don't know.
The blades are designed to operate in a vacuum. And the concept for the base design are blades. The sight anticipates a conventional flywheel design with 80% of the mass to exist at the fulcrum. What's obvious is that there is no current product. I'm just trying to figure out if the general base concept is sound. Whith those clarifications is the technology still viable or competitive?

don
Not in my opinion, Don. I still see some serious problems with lash/backlash precisely because of the magnetic coupling at both ends of the process - loading unloading. For example, consider what would happen when a large load is placed on the system. The center rotor would quickly feel the load and begin to slow down. The surrounding rotors will be rotating at a greater speed due to their mass and the energy stored in them. That's going to cause a problem maintaining synchrony and they are going to try, and probably will overshoot the primary rotor. Bad news when that happens. That would be the disadvantage of using magnetic coupling as opposed to direct and individual flywheels instead of just a larger, single one.

12. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by dap

The blades are designed to operate in a vacuum.
I was about to say you are nuts because they called it a turbine and a turbine in a vacuum is nonsensical. Then I looked at the web site and saw that it did talk about operating in a vacuum. So now I think it is the inventor who is nuts. But you're still nuts, too.
You're right on one of the two counts. I'm (we're all nuts). On the second point you may not be seeing all the detials. Weather or not there's utility to the system, the turbines can operate in a vacuum. It's perhaps the first. Again, that does not cause it to have utility, just makes the technology interesting (and new ). The blades will still spin connected to a motor/generator in a vacuum by means of the magnetic coupling. The devil's in the details.

dap

13. "Not in my opinion, Don. I still see some serious problems with lash/backlash precisely because of the magnetic coupling at both ends of the process - loading unloading. For example, consider what would happen when a large load is placed on the system. The center rotor would quickly feel the load and begin to slow down. The surrounding rotors will be rotating at a greater speed due to their mass and the energy stored in them. That's going to cause a problem maintaining synchrony and they are going to try, and probably will overshoot the primary rotor. Bad news when that happens. That would be the disadvantage of using magnetic coupling as opposed to direct and individual flywheels instead of just a larger, single one."

I see your concern. However, now we're getting into my area of expertiese. I'm very weak on the physics. I defer to you on that. Computer Science is my background. Computers have become more sophisticated in controlling generators and circuits in power applications. I see this as a challenge, not a stop block.

don

14. [quote="dap
I see your concern. However, now we're getting into my area of expertiese. I'm very weak on the physics. I defer to you on that. Computer Science is my background. Computers have become more sophisticated in controlling generators and circuits in power applications. I see this as a challenge, not a stop block.

don[/quote]

Then we have some similarities in our backgrounds. Mine is also computers but more along the applied side - computer controls and monitoring, particularly in power generation, regulation and distribution. Also a solid background in physics and very heavy on mechanics. And I've been doing that for nearly 30 years now and it includes the most modern systems currently in operation.

And that's why I took the analytical approach that I did. :wink:

Yes, it could be considered a challenge - a serious one, in fact. The timing problems I described are physical (mechanical) and the design as described would only be practical under extremely light-loading conditions. No amount of computer control or other fine tuning is going to overcome the shortcomings I pointed out - it's an inherent design flaw of the first order.

I'll finish up by saying again that I honestly believe it's intended more to impress (the old "dazzle them with technology" thing) than it is practical. It's going to suffer a lot of internal strains and losses because of the lash/backlash problems I described. Sorry, but at this point I see no possible way around it.

15. Old Geezer

A kindred spirit. Well, you have 15 yers of industry knowledge and experience on me. Thank you for sharing your knowledge within this forum. And I can understand if you're 'finished' with this particular discussion.

Early on I expressed the thought that the novel features of the technology do not cause it to have utility (usefuness). So, I want to assume that it does not in the quest for an answer to my initial question.

Maintaining objectivty despite ourselves is one of the greatest challenges in all of the sciences. So, I'm looking at this technology through the lenses of this prescription.

Like all the other overturned objections, your concern about "serious problems with lash/backlash precisely because of the magnetic coupling at both ends of the process - loading unloadig" are not valid and assumes there will be uncontrolled loading of the center or driving turbine (not true by the way). On that basis alone you discount the whole. And you are free to do so.

First of all I've seen the other prototype video on the site and the synchronicity between units at both ends of loading is remarkable. This is not some variable Speed (torque) renewable energy system. For the sake of constructive argument let's assume your concerns are valid. And without getting into a protracted discussion on motion control, which you and I could effortlessly do over a cup of coffee, sufficient to say, there are frequently new control algorithms for continuous load balance control of speed and tension for controlling backlash with intermediate gears capable of adjustable meshed engagement between driven gears.

So again, with much respect, this brings me back to my initial question. Is there anyone capable of answering it?

don

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement