Tom, I found your 'whirligig' very interesting. In reading your description, (imagine bicycle wheels,etc) ... it sounds like you have developed a working model? Any chance you have and have a video clip of it in action?
Nevertheless I'd wanted to post a comment that I applaud your efforts and plan on including relaying your ideas by way of my blog (http://blog.myarchive.us) and on an alternative energy forum that I participate in. http://www.biodieselnow.com/forums/ShowThread.aspx?PostID=127639#127639
Tom, too complex. The kiss principle is important. About 10 years ago I built a model VAWT with 4 asymetrical wings pivoted into the wind with a tail. The asymmetric wing did the same as your oval cam without the complexity. As a model constructed from balsa, used model airplane wing ribs, and plastic 2L pop bottles with 24 inch wings it spun fantastically well. Other projects meant not going forward with a full sized prototype. Simplification makes it more robust.
I love what you have so far. The design overcomes a lot of the shortcomings of other wind turbine designs. I also agree with Max that your preliminary design is too complex.
However, I do not believe that Max's design with asymmetrical airfoils and no cam is superior. Without knowing all of the details of Max's design, I can envision a VAWT with asymmetrical air foils and no cam that would generate a net torque. But without the use of a cam, I do not see any way to prevent the airfoils from working against each other at some positions in the cycle. (Please prove me wrong!)
With the airfoils sometimes working against each other, there is no way for such a design to reach optimal efficiency. Now, the real unit of measure for a project like this is not efficiency, but dollars. Complex machines almost always cost more to maintain than simpler machines, so the real question is whether or not the additional efficiency will generate enough output to offset higher maintenance costs. (I believe that they will.)
Obviously, the ideal solution is simple and efficient. I believe that a cam will always be required to achieve the optimal angle of attack, but I have an idea for a different cam design that would eliminate the need for several moving parts. This design could also eliminate the possibility of the airfoils rotating either clockwise or counterclockwise at the low points of the cam.
I just stumbled across your design today, and all of the news and posts appear to be several months old. I hope your project has not stalled, because I think that you have a great idea. If you would like to hear more about my ideas for improving your design, please try to contact me, as I would be very happy to collaborate.
You've come along something pretty neat Tom and I see that you asked for more feedback. Personally I don't have a whole lot to say because I've always had trouble critiqueing other people's work, but there is an inventor's networking website called 'bulbstorm.com' that I think you should check out. There are a lot of people with the same type of ideas and aspirations as yours. Check it out!
Tom - A utility-scale sized unit would have a lot of weight/stress on the lower main bearing.
Your machine design should include an easy means of lubricating, unloading and replacing this bearing. Simplicity of design is elegant – low-cost maintenance is critical.
Great idea - looking forward to seeing a working model.
Tom, Good job on your whirlgig. I need a few information though. I'm thinking of doing this in my final year under grad project. Would you mind giving me some specifications about the whirlgig? eg. Dimensions, Material, Capacity, Critical Speed etc.
Any body out there that has contact or information on Tom J. Gilmour ? I was doing a patent search on a concept very similar to Tom's Whirligig. Please Contact me at jaimefpenuela@gmail.com or at mechanicsrus@att.net. Thanks
I am 64 years old. I studied aeronautics at Ryerson polytechnical back around 1967. I then spent 30 years working for IBM fixing main frame computers ant their peripherals. I am current working as a computer programmer in VB6, SQL Server.
11 comments:
Tom,
I found your 'whirligig' very interesting. In reading your description, (imagine bicycle wheels,etc) ... it sounds like you have developed a working model? Any chance you have and have a video clip of it in action?
Nevertheless I'd wanted to post a comment that I applaud your efforts and plan on including relaying your ideas by way of my blog (http://blog.myarchive.us) and on an alternative energy forum that I participate in.
http://www.biodieselnow.com/forums/ShowThread.aspx?PostID=127639#127639
Hi Tom,
Excellent work! It's great to see such a well-thought idea coming to life... I'm really excited to see a working prototype!
How about a scale-model?
Here is a press release about your Whirligig... Cheers!
Tom, too complex. The kiss principle is important. About 10 years ago I built a model VAWT with 4 asymetrical wings pivoted into the wind with a tail. The asymmetric wing did the same as your oval cam without the complexity. As a model constructed from balsa, used model airplane wing ribs, and plastic 2L pop bottles with 24 inch wings it spun fantastically well. Other projects meant not going forward with a full sized prototype. Simplification makes it more robust.
Hi again Tom,
I added your idea to hugg. If more than 6 people hugg your story your idea will get a lot of exposure. Here is the link... Good luck to you!
http://www.hugg.com/story/18225/
Cheer everyone!
Phi.
Tom,
I love what you have so far. The design overcomes a lot of the shortcomings of other wind turbine designs. I also agree with Max that your preliminary design is too complex.
However, I do not believe that Max's design with asymmetrical airfoils and no cam is superior. Without knowing all of the details of Max's design, I can envision a VAWT with asymmetrical air foils and no cam that would generate a net torque. But without the use of a cam, I do not see any way to prevent the airfoils from working against each other at some positions in the cycle. (Please prove me wrong!)
With the airfoils sometimes working against each other, there is no way for such a design to reach optimal efficiency. Now, the real unit of measure for a project like this is not efficiency, but dollars. Complex machines almost always cost more to maintain than simpler machines, so the real question is whether or not the additional efficiency will generate enough output to offset higher maintenance costs. (I believe that they will.)
Obviously, the ideal solution is simple and efficient. I believe that a cam will always be required to achieve the optimal angle of attack, but I have an idea for a different cam design that would eliminate the need for several moving parts. This design could also eliminate the possibility of the airfoils rotating either clockwise or counterclockwise at the low points of the cam.
I just stumbled across your design today, and all of the news and posts appear to be several months old. I hope your project has not stalled, because I think that you have a great idea. If you would like to hear more about my ideas for improving your design, please try to contact me, as I would be very happy to collaborate.
-Moses
You've come along something pretty neat Tom and I see that you asked for more feedback. Personally I don't have a whole lot to say because I've always had trouble critiqueing other people's work, but there is an inventor's networking website called 'bulbstorm.com' that I think you should check out. There are a lot of people with the same type of ideas and aspirations as yours. Check it out!
Tom - A utility-scale sized unit would have a lot of weight/stress on the lower main bearing.
Your machine design should include an easy means of lubricating, unloading and replacing this bearing. Simplicity of design is elegant – low-cost maintenance is critical.
Great idea - looking forward to seeing a working model.
Tom,
Good job on your whirlgig.
I need a few information though. I'm thinking of doing this in my final year under grad project. Would you mind giving me some specifications about the whirlgig? eg. Dimensions, Material, Capacity, Critical Speed etc.
PS: my e-mail id: ratnarulz@gmail.com
Tom,
Please help me out! I'm desperate about constructing your windmill. :D
Any body out there that has contact or information on Tom J. Gilmour ? I was doing a patent search on a concept very similar to Tom's Whirligig. Please Contact me at jaimefpenuela@gmail.com or at mechanicsrus@att.net. Thanks
Post a Comment