Posted by Curbie on July 16, 2009, 7:55 pm
> > Harry,
> > >Well, you could use an automotive alternator for a wind turbine, in
> > >fact it's not a bad idea, I have seen several. A cheap solution for a
> > >DIY project.
> > This idea that an automotive alternator has any value in the hands of
> > the general public for a wind-turbine is just plain bogus. Wayne's
> > statement "That requires a rotor >20' in diameter. Are you trying to
> > say that you can hang that on a car alternator?" is a valid concept.
> > The OtherPower people who are flown hundreds of hand built
> > wind-turbines use 1000Lb. trailer axles to their home-built 10'
> > wind-turbine and 6000Lb. trailer axles to their home-built 20'
> > wind-turbine. If you try to hang even a 10' blades directly on an
> > automotive alternator's shaft the centrifugal and gyroscopic forces
> > would cause that alternator to self-destruct in a very short time.
> > Wind gyrates all over the place and you need a blade shaft that is
> > designed to handle these wild forces, alternators are designed for
> > steady rotational forces only.
> > Next you run into the issue of RPM, normal wind might generate 1000
> > RPMs with prop designed for high RPM, automotive alternators require
> > way more 1000 RPM to power with any efficiency. Now you could cure all
> > this with a separate prop shaft, bearing, and then gearing the mess up
> > for the alternator, but all that costs money and efficiency.
> > Lastly, you have to look at net power output, an automotive alternator
> > is draining the battery for field excitement as it's charging your
> > battery. Gross (charging) output - field excitement = net output.
> > Understanding automotive alternators is not near enough, someone also
> > has to understand wind-turbines, if someone can get this idea to fly
> > in wind and is willing to post data, I'll give them benefit of the
> > doubt if their data holds and they're trying to sell this plan to
> > others, but until then selling this idea is nothing more than scam
> > designed to steal people's money.
> > BTW, I'm hurt that wasn't voted "Most Ignorant" maybe this post will
> > help?
> > >But you're right, these crackpot(s) wouldn't be capable.
> > When you're Right, you are Right.
> > Curbie
> It would not be valid to put the turbine assembly on the alternator
> shaft as it would need to turn many time faster than the turbine. One
> I saw was driven about 20:1 faster using two sets of toothed belts and
> an idler shaft. The main problem was keeping the weather out. The
> rest of it was just automotive battery. Simple. I remember the
> turbine was about ten ft diameter, three blades. It was a propellor
> from an aircraft. It had been condemed as it had been subjected to
> shock load butwas fine for the turbine.
> Big fin to turn it into wind.
Harry,
Im not troubled by any word you said in this post but two, if The
main problem was re-worded to [Their main problem] and the word
(concept or conclusion) Simple was omitted I would have NO problem
in the context of a personal opinion. In my view, everybody is
entitled to their personal opinion as long as the opinion is not
intended harm someone, which is obviously NOT the intension of your
post, I think your post has reasonable seeds for discussion as long as
is NOT in the context of this scam.
EnergyMan and Richardsons scam is being sold to the public along the
lines of; just give them money and they send you an automobile
alternator with their secret modifications that will solve all your
energy problems. Any information such as you outlined in your post is
TOTALLY absent from their sales pitch, along with the details and
costs of that information not mention the same for a tower to fly this
automobile alternator as a wind-turbine to generate any electrical
power.
The problem here in my view isnt people posting their reasonable
opinions for scrutiny, its giving these scammers the slightest
credence to use so they can scam more people.
Best wishes (to Harry)
Curbie
Posted by Curbie on July 14, 2009, 3:52 am
Wayne,
>I doubt that there are suddenly 2 separate nut jobs using fractured
>English and whacko reasoning to promote automotive alternator use in
>wind turbines. Energyman and Richardson are both the same crackpot.
I know what a troll is, we've both been trolled in this group before
and I have a simple but effective way to deal with trolls called a
"killfile". The reason this meat-stick didn't join mine the first post
he made was that I had the suspicion that Richardson is Energyman
although I can't prove it so I'm not making that accusation.
The best thing that I think I can do about these scam ideas is help to
totally discredit them, drain the money out of the scam idea by
engaging the propagators of this garbage and letting them do their own
discrediting. Richardson has been up to the task.
Curbie
Posted by Curbie on July 14, 2009, 12:15 pm
>I am selling my Wind Generators to one country, yes and that whole country
>will be using only my powerful Wind generators. 10kw is a piece of cake to
>make if you understand the core of power.
>What criminal asshole?
Anybody who perpetrates fraudulent scams is a criminal, Energymam is a
criminal, and since your now admitting to it, YOU'RE a criminal and
belong in prison!
Curbie
Posted by clare on July 13, 2009, 7:48 pm
wrote:
>> >Let me teach you something, Motor and Generator use Permanent magnet are
>>>the same. That's what they use blocking diode to control the current
>>>flow.
>>>Don't be picky, learn the core of science and stop fooling around with
>>>the
>>>two dead animals in this group or you will be infected like them.
>> I take it this means you're not backup your claims with data? Why
>> doesn't surprise me?
>> "learn the core of science"
>>
>> Definition of a Motor:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor
>>
>> Definition of a Generator:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_generator
>>
>> I've been waiting to learn something from you, but when you won't
>> provide the test data for "tests" you claim you ran, don't know the
>> difference between a motor & a generator, and insult everyone who does
>> accept your claims on your word, there is nothing to learn.
>>
>> Why don't you teach me something post just the test data you claimed
>> to have run for just your motor/alternator/generator you only need
>> include average yearly windspeed, tower height, rotor size, number of
>> blades, along with gearing ratio and field excitement losses for your
>> motor/alternator/generator.
>>
>> Another claim you make is that you work with real data, and real
>> stuff, you must know these things as a minimum for any test, or are
>> you trying to cover lies with insults.
>>
>> Post or pretend.
>>
>> Curbie
>>
>>
>Asking me for data? Why should I work for your dickhead?
>You don't know shit about charging mechanism, why do you still pretend to
>have knowledge better than me?
>How many years have you been in technology Curbie? me, over 40 years now.
>Your English is a real witness of your loss, the Chinese/Japanese had to
>make everything for your living. Isn't that pathetic? A big man isn't
>able to help himself? Why you let the little guy beat you up while your
>size is enlarging?
>You can say "English means intelligence" again but it doesn't matter,
>reality hits your head hard this time!!!
You MIGHT know something, but you cannot get it across to anyone in
English. Not sure you can in your native tongue either, whatever it
happens to be.
I've been "in technology" for over 40 years including in "automotive
technology", so I understand charging systems. Been in "computer
technology" too -
Your descriptions and analysis of how charging systems (alternator or
generator or "dynamo" or whatever name you want to put on them) and
motors work is pitiful at best.
English, Japanese, Chinese, or whatever has no relevance.
I've worked with electric vehicles as well - including some basic
motor controls.
You might as well quit while you are , in your own mind, "ahead" -
because you will not influence anyone here with your bizzarre
arguments.
Posted by harry k on July 6, 2009, 3:41 pm
> >>Here is why it's bad to use a PMA (permanent magnet) motor for your Wind
> >>Power:
> > It's a bit difficult to take seriously (not to mention read) the
> > information of someone claiming to be an "Authority" on wind, that
> > doesn't seem to know the difference between a "motor" which uses
> > electricity to create motion and an "alternator" (as in permanent
> > magnet alternator PMA) which uses motion to create electricity.
> >>1) It would require so much strong wind to turn the motor, most of them
> >>output 300watt - 1000watt at voltage not useful to charge your standard
> >>battery. PMA motors are weak, so many times weaker than NON-PMA motors.
> >>I already tested theirs. So be sure you test their motor with load if
> >>you got one, because they use capacitor to mislead the true output.
> >>theirs
> >>is a hyper output!.
> > Sense you've stated that you've "already tested theirs" and I can
> > presume that you must have tested yours for comparison data, I'd like
> > to see the test data for BOTH "theirs" (PMA) and your (excited field)
> > alternators. Please include anemometer data, tower height, rotor size,
> > number of blades, along with gearing ratio and field excitement
> > losses.
> >>2) PMA motor doesn't have any flexibility to adapt to wind power, it's
> >>fixed. Therefore you are a loser if you bought one, its torque cannot be
> >>adjusted to adapt to wind's power.
> > This is what your data needs to prove.
> >>3) The PMA makers are usually jalous poeple, they're afraid you will
> >>invade
> >>their market, they would try to eliminate your idea if you have something
> >>better.
> > Generally businesses just adopt "better" ideas and sell them to their
> > established markets.
> >>4) THE PMA-MOTOR USERS/MAKERS called Adjustable Torque motors as junk,
> >>BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T TRIED IT, and they don't know anything about it.
> > I think a little closer attention to what's been going on in the field
> > of wind-turbines would helpful here.
> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>Why it makes sense to use an Alternator with Automagnet/Autofield
> >>controller?
> >>1) It can adjust itself to any wind speed, any wind power.
> >>2) Generator outputs 4-10 times more power, real power, not hyper power
> >>like PMA motors.
> > I hope when you post your data verifying these claims, you'll sort out
> > the use of the terms motor, alternator, and generator their NOT
> > interchangeable making there claims very hard to follow.
> > Curbie
> Don't be picky Dumbass, every body on eBay speak the same language only you
> the Redhead speak your own picky language.
> I work with real data, and real stuff, you work with imagination. That's
> the difference don't you know dumbass?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The mere fact that you are confusing the use of 'motor' with
'alternator or generator' shows you don't have a clue.
Harry K
XML site map
> > >Well, you could use an automotive alternator for a wind turbine, in
> > >fact it's not a bad idea, I have seen several. A cheap solution for a
> > >DIY project.
> > This idea that an automotive alternator has any value in the hands of
> > the general public for a wind-turbine is just plain bogus. Wayne's
> > statement "That requires a rotor >20' in diameter. Are you trying to
> > say that you can hang that on a car alternator?" is a valid concept.
> > The OtherPower people who are flown hundreds of hand built
> > wind-turbines use 1000Lb. trailer axles to their home-built 10'
> > wind-turbine and 6000Lb. trailer axles to their home-built 20'
> > wind-turbine. If you try to hang even a 10' blades directly on an
> > automotive alternator's shaft the centrifugal and gyroscopic forces
> > would cause that alternator to self-destruct in a very short time.
> > Wind gyrates all over the place and you need a blade shaft that is
> > designed to handle these wild forces, alternators are designed for
> > steady rotational forces only.
> > Next you run into the issue of RPM, normal wind might generate 1000
> > RPMs with prop designed for high RPM, automotive alternators require
> > way more 1000 RPM to power with any efficiency. Now you could cure all
> > this with a separate prop shaft, bearing, and then gearing the mess up
> > for the alternator, but all that costs money and efficiency.
> > Lastly, you have to look at net power output, an automotive alternator
> > is draining the battery for field excitement as it's charging your
> > battery. Gross (charging) output - field excitement = net output.
> > Understanding automotive alternators is not near enough, someone also
> > has to understand wind-turbines, if someone can get this idea to fly
> > in wind and is willing to post data, I'll give them benefit of the
> > doubt if their data holds and they're trying to sell this plan to
> > others, but until then selling this idea is nothing more than scam
> > designed to steal people's money.
> > BTW, I'm hurt that wasn't voted "Most Ignorant" maybe this post will
> > help?
> > >But you're right, these crackpot(s) wouldn't be capable.
> > When you're Right, you are Right.
> > Curbie
> It would not be valid to put the turbine assembly on the alternator
> shaft as it would need to turn many time faster than the turbine. One
> I saw was driven about 20:1 faster using two sets of toothed belts and
> an idler shaft. The main problem was keeping the weather out. The
> rest of it was just automotive battery. Simple. I remember the
> turbine was about ten ft diameter, three blades. It was a propellor
> from an aircraft. It had been condemed as it had been subjected to
> shock load butwas fine for the turbine.
> Big fin to turn it into wind.
Harry,