Salient White Elephant

April 28, 2009

High Speed Centrifugally Stable VAWT

(Note – there are some errors in this post that I haven’t had time to fix yet, but I’m sure that if you know mechanical engineering you can easily correct the errors yourself. I think this idea might have potential once the errors are corrected. Note also that the torque tube will probably remain fixed with respect to the stationary tower rather than rotating around it. Also note that the struts each need to be connected by a vertical lattice (near the stationary tower) to keep them separated… that is, to prevent the load that tends to bend the ends of the struts towards each other from being transferred to the rest of the structure, thereby defeating the fundamental purpose of the idea.)

(Okay, here’s a pic with some errors corrected, but with no explanation:

High Mechanical Efficiency Centrifugally Stable Darrieus Turbine

)

High Speed Centrifugally Stable VAWT, Side View

High Speed Centrifugally Stable VAWT, Aerial View

This is a 3 bladed turbine, but I have drawn only two blades in order to make the illustration easier to understand. And I realize there are a lot of “legitimate” mechanical designs to realize this concept, likely using gears instead of tires and so forth. But I’m not a mechanical engineer, and so I just want to draw something that will give the real designers an idea they can play with.

Because the tower does not rotate, the rotor can be very tall, very slender, and it can spin at high rpm without becoming centrifugally unstable. But can’t the stationary tower can bend just as much as the rotating tower? And if the stationary tower bends, won’t this cause the rotating part of the structure to become centrifugally unstable just as if the tower were rotating? No. To see this, consider what happens when the middle of a rotating tower bows in response to the lifting forces transmitted to the tower from the airfoil by the middle strut. In this case, the middle of the rotating tower bows in the downwind direction, but its rotational axis does not change. Therefore the mass of the rotating tower has been displaced from the rotational axis, and centrifugal force now acts to cause even more bowing, and the rotor has become unstable. But when the middle of the stationary tower bows in the downwind direction, the rotational axis of the middle struts and airfoils moves along with it. And so although the rotor’s axis of rotation is no longer straight, it is at least centrifugally stable.

Another advantage of this design is that the guy wires are not connected to the tower through bearings. This should provide a big reduction in mechanical losses, since the bearings at the top of a traditionally guyed Darrieus bear a very heavy load – the rotor’s overturning moment. Of course, the overturning moment must be supported somewhere by some bearings. This design has bearings inside the rings that the struts attach to. So is there any advantage in this compared to the traditionally guyed Darrieus? I’m not a mechanical engineer, so I don’t know. Maybe there’s no advantage at all, but I’m wondering if the approach here isn’t better because it is easier to influence the bearings at design time. For one thing, you can spread the load over as many bearings as you want, while the traditional design requires two sets of bearings – one at the top of the tower and one at the bottom. For another thing, the guy wires in the traditional design are not only trying to torque the bearings about a horizontal axis, they are also doing this cyclically, from very low torque to very high torque several times a second. Surely this can’t be good. Of course, the present design also places a cyclic load on the bearings – there’s no way to avoid that. But at least it’s a “typical” load in that it doesn’t try to twist the bearings to a new axis. So maybe this is a better approach. It seems to me that mechanical losses will be decreased by eliminating the torquing thing, but again, I don’t really have the background to know if this claim is accurate.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: