Cost would be the same but the start up speed would be no different. All they did was take the area of a large blade and placed it into the many smaller blades thus greater RPM.. now the wind average is only 10 to 25 MPH.. which is about 7 to 10 meters per second.. which happens to be about 60 % of the time.. the rest there is no wind.. what to do then? Sure they are safer in storm but what happens with a high wind freak storm and you can not pitch the blades back.. There is always a limit to what can take place.. even the generator can not handle that much.. something has to give.. what will it be?

The patent claim is only to impress people – so much BS.

Check their site out – there is no real information available – at this time this ‘idea’ is in the huckster stage. Maybe they go and find something new but I doubt it.

Marc de Piolenc said: “Grumman built a similar machine called the Diffuser Augmented Wind Turbine”.

It should have worked “in theory” but didn’t. New Zealand started the Vortec Diffuser Augmented Turbine project in 1998 and gave up on it 3 years later in 2001.

You can read the details at:
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/vortec.html

The FloDesign is a little different from the Vortec, it’s been almost a year surely they would have had enough time to make a prototype and test that pretty CAD picture.

With the old patent (one country) you could patent an ‘invention’ in one country and I could patent exactly the same thing in another country – even if it had been in use and sold for many years in the first country.

In dealing with new technology processes I have had considerable exposure to this point. For example, we developed and patented a concept and equipment in India for a direct reduction plant modification – I and others hold the patent. Midrex (the original overall process designer) later patented exactly the same thing in the US where I am one of the supporters and another as the inventor.

Many patents that companies display are just for that reason – to show and are probably not legally enforceable. Many are from small scale inventors who are just wasting their time and money. A very few are serious items.

The turbine described above is only good as an anchor – or to get money out of suckers – sorry bout that!

Marc de Piolenc
co-author: Ducted Fan Design, Vol. 1
http://massflow.archivale.com/ductbook.htm

A patent must be on something “unique, not manufactured for sale elsewhere previously.”

The multiblade design is nothing new.
Farmers have been converting wind power into serious mechanical power for many years. And they do NOT use any silly three bladed waste of space illogical “aerofoil lifting” turbines. They use flat plates set on about a 45 degree angle, and they do not care if you like their design or not. Still, the multibladed design is nothing new.

The use of a shroud is nothing new.
Furthermore the use of a shroud is anti-productive.
“The basic idea is sound – use a shroud to make the effective area of the rotor larger than its physical size, by inducing additional flow…” No that idea (for free-flow air) is not sound. The shroud itself is a problem. Consider what the idea is: Very simply you are saying that if someone cuts the point off of a hollow cone, and slightly induces wind into the small end, that the wind coming out the big end will be greater in volume. The greater volume of wind which comes out of the larger end would induce more wind to enter the small end, and thus create a self-sustained continuous increase of flow over time. That simply does not happen. If it did happen then by simply inducing the wind into the small end for a short time would create a continuous (unending) flow perpetually. You are therefore claiming a perpetual motion concept.

The old farmers windmills do not use a shroud. Surely they may have tried a shroud, and they probably did not give a sh*t what you personally thought of the look of the thing. But, as farmers are, they made it work one way or another, and that does not include a shroud. If that company is getting tax dollars for developing that thing, then [no comment].

Go search for “low wind speed startup” and see what you get. Flat plate technology is nothing new. It works. If that company would have simply built without the shroud, and left the design with multiple blades at 45 degree angles, and not claimed a false “patent” then they might have done far better.

“That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.” (I don’t remember the tune that was from.)

I doubt that you guys know what bernouli’s principle is or even what Betz’s law is. Explain the logic of their use or you make you self look foolish.

I see nothing in common to compare with a jet engine.

I am sure they are looking for investors with deep pockets – probably people should hurry though as I doubt they will be around long.

Patent ownwd by Kushiyu University. Torishima is selling this type of wind turbine, but the size is small.

Howard Wilkinson

WindEnergy7

A similar modified design could be used for water turbines for the collection of tidal or current flow water energy. Hydro is more concentrated than wind energy and could yield high energy collection and efficiency gains over wave and obstructive tidal collectors.

Fantastic system design!