Unusual design of a free-flow hydropower station

[Hydro]

I wanted to discuss one design of a free-flow hydroelectric power station.
To start, here's a video I came across online.



If anyone is interested, I will try to explain the principle of operation as I understand it

[Hydro]

Nobody is interested, thanks.

Are you "nobody" ?

[Hydro]

This is not our video. Some kind of development from Romania.
As the developers say (automatic translation into English):

The design is a system (two rows) of rectangular blades (flat plate), the axes of which divide them into two unequal parts, the larger of which is always (due to the action of the flow) located behind the axis further downstream.
The axes of the blades, with their upper and lower parts, are, in turn, fixed to the upper and lower chains closed in rings (or to any other flexible element).
The chains transmit force through sprockets (impellers) to two vertical shafts, from which the mechanical energy of the moving medium (water, air, etc.) is transmitted through a flexible coupling and intermediate shaft to the shafts of electric generators.






The designers state that:

1. Behind the turbine, the water has a speed 2-3 times greater than the flow entering the turbine.
2. Behind the turbine, the water level drops (exactly how much is not specified).
3. A few meters down from the turbine, a certain stable water vortex appears.
4. The power that such a hydraulic station produces is 2-3 times higher than a conventional free-flow turbine of the same size.

I would like to start by discussing how real this is and is it possible?

[langwadt]

low speed and no more torque than he can easily stop by hand...

[Hydro]

Well, actually, for now I’m only talking about the fact that - Behind the turbine, the water has a speed 2-3 times greater than the flow entering the turbine.
How can this provide power and also accelerate the flow?

Here's another video, it's more clear here.

[Wallace Gasiewicz]

Just a Guess:Those blades look like airplane wings and are using the flow on one side to create "lift".Perhaps they mean the water flow on one side of the Hydrofoil is greater that that on the other side??

[coromonadalix]

and you dont call that turbine by the way

too much mechanics  in this, reliability over time    meh 

having used real turbines would have help, increased strenght and torque for a generator,   even recycled converted washing machine motors would have been better

and having the "propeller blade"  going opposite ways in the center kill efficiency, check the drag / turbulence they make, thats a big  NO, you dont want that in any systems


but not practical in any ways  for efficent energy production

you have tons of water entering it, it turn slowly, and the guy was able to stop it by hand,  means no torque at all,  all eficiency is lost  even if you say the water speed is higher at the output ...

check water turbines efficiency
check water paddle wheels efficiency

[Wallace Gasiewicz]

Agree  with Coromonadalix. 
Does not appear to be very efficient; 

Maybe some sort of effort to not chop up fish like turbines are apt to do?

[Hydro]

Don't rush to conclusions
It seems to me that this is only a small-scale prototype, and larger stations are free from these shortcomings.
That's what they claim

Throughout the world, power supply to remote areas, where people do not have access to a stable power supply, is a problem. According to reports by the International Energy Agency, some 1.4 billion people have limited or no access to electricity in the world. Some 300 million of them live near rivers.

To develop social infrastructure and agriculture in such areas, the governments of different countries build thermal power plants (TPPs), large hydropower plants and nuclear power plants (NPPs), as well as expensive power lines with associated infrastructure (transformers and high-voltage substations ) to deliver electricity to remote consumers. However, these projects are very time-consuming and require huge initial investment.

Conventional dam-based hydropower has peaked, and further expansion and development are hindered by resource depletion. There are fewer suitable locations for new power generation facilities.

A gradual transition is underway to alternative forms of hydropower, including technologies using low-grade energy sources such as the flow of rivers, canals, and sea and oceanic streams. They represent a promising direction for development, but are not yet fully-fledged competitors to traditional hydropower.

We propose a solution involving a free-flow hydraulic turbine with enhanced energy efficiency. Our technical know-how based on ingenious scientific research represents an innovative step towards the future of energy development.

The technology of small and micro free-flow hydropower systems may partially solve this problem at minimal cost and at the same time decentralize energy production for various consumers.

When implemented, such technologies will help to supply electricity to remote areas, farmlands, farmers and others as the basic or back-up source of energy supply for consumers or can be used for irrigation without the use of electricity. Therefore, the governments of many countries in the developing world are encouraging the development of small and micro HPPs to resolve the problem.

Farmers, families and small enterprises located near rivers and canals highlighted the problem of unstable electricity supply to consumers and for irrigation, leading to the desire to solve these problems.

It is also an important and positive factor for the implementation of micro free-flow hydropower stations in countries with warm climates where watercourses do not freeze in winter. This helps to increase the quantity of these turbines’workhours during the year and to generate more energy compared to countries that do not have such climate advantages.

Small hydropower has enormous potential to stimulate the use of renewables but it is not well-enough developed in the world. However, thanks to increasing fuel prices and efforts to cut polluting emissions in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, there is a global trend to develop renewable technologies.


            Many countries in Africa, South America, Australia and other regions have a lot of opportunities in this area. This is why we believe that this market segment is huge. This is why our product – micro free-flow hydropower stations - will be in high demand and help to supply water to irrigate farmlands without electricity or fuel costs and to generate cheap electricity.

[coromonadalix]

@ Hydro   you dont seem neutral in all of this,   are you one of the guys ??  even if you say you're not

what i've written is evidence, and you clearly see it on this demo, small scale experiment, if you say otherwise that's up to you

you are biaised in some way's

because you absolutely want to try explaining things that we dont necessarly need or want to get, you seem to force your way in ...



But i do understand energy requirements, and everything related to that,  no need of your lenghty explanation

but they must be done with intelligence,  wich this product is not

bbye

[Andy Chee]

Looks like a Darrieus wind turbine, but stretched out along a track.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrieus_wind_turbine

Which reminds be of this youtube video where they stretched a RC plane propeller out along a track:

[coromonadalix]

lolll     

here we go again, saw that in the past      yes the video is some mythbster revival as some comment say, love the square one  loll

man  the mecanics involved in this kill the efficiency

[Hydro]

Hydro you dont seem neutral in all of this, are you one of the guys ?? even if you say you're not

you are biased in some way's

I want to be a participant in this project and popularize the idea.
Do you see something reprehensible in this?

[coromonadalix]

YES   

if for yourself you want to believe it, go ahead, feel good participate or invest, BUT dont bring others with you

and i maintain the fact with everything you wrote,  that you are biaised in some ways    when you wrote / quote :  We propose a solution involving ...

YOU are not neutral and, and i do think you have some objectives in mind using the "WE" sentence of your quoting

you do publicity for the others / unknown in this video /  even if they are totally it the wrong or not, YOU DO publicity for them,  thats not being neutral

and once again dont push your beliefs on others

thats all

il  stay out of this


oh and i see you go in other threads  loll     

[Hydro]

YES   
if want for yourself, go ahead, feel good participate or invest, BUT dont bring others with you

Why not ? Is this forbidden by someone?

and i maintain the fact with everything you wrote,  that you are biaised in some ways    when you wrote / quote :  We propose a solution involving ...

YOU are not neutral and, and i do think you have some objectives in mind using the WE sentence
 

That was a quote.
That's what THEY wrote, that's what I quoted

[Hydro]

This is not our video. Some kind of development from Romania.
As the developers say (automatic translation into English):



The designers state that:

Despite the kinematic awkwardness of this turbine, the developers claim that it is 2-3 times more energy efficient than its analogues of the same size

Pay attention to what they write:

1. Behind the turbine, the water has a speed 2-3 times greater than the flow entering the turbine.
2. Behind the turbine, the water level drops (exactly how much is not specified).
3. A few meters down from the turbine, a certain stable water vortex appears.
4. The power that such a hydraulic station produces is 2-3 times higher than a conventional free-flow turbine of the same size.

[Infraviolet]

There was a video shared recently, I think on Hackaday, of a "turbine" system of this kind. The concept derived from a wind turbine build using sails mounted on cables which moved round a "railway". Someone 3d printed one with tank-trak style links in place of the cables, it did rotate when a fan's blast was directed at it, but there would be a lotof losses to friction from the moving track links. The key idea was that having the tracks/cables on the outside of the blades impoved the area covered, or something similar, but I expect any advantages would be outweighed by the problems of extra moving parts.

[Hydro]

Yes, as I said, this particular design is mechanically not very efficient.

But for now I wanted to draw attention to the principle of its operation.
And on this principle it is possible to construct a kinematically more advanced design.

Follow the topic.

[Andy Chee]

And on this principle it is possible to construct a kinematically more advanced design.

It is not possible because.... physics.

[Hydro]

I'll show you the calculation.
You will have the opportunity to disprove it using physics.

[Hydro]

Go ahead !
(this is not the whole article, only half so far)

[IanB]

I tried to wade through that article, but I don't have much time for it. It seems like non-scientists and non-engineers trying to do science and engineering. As a result there are lots of superfluous words, extraneous details and complex, unnecessary descriptions that hide a clear understanding of the core principles at play.

[Hydro]

If you're short on time, then don't read it.
It will be better

And on this principle it is possible to construct a kinematically more advanced design.

It is not possible because.... physics.

Andy Chee
I'll give you a couple of days to find the error here.
Then I'll post the rest of the article.
It's not as simple as this anymore

[voltsandjolts]

I think it would be best if this thread were locked.
That way, it would avoid wasting the time of all involved here, and Hydro could get on with changing the world and making his fortune. Elsewhere.

[Hydro]

What don't you like here?
No one is going to change the world.
Innovative technology is being developed.
Can you actually say something?

[nali]

This looks like it is turning into one of those "I found lots of stuff on YouTube and the web, please help me make it / invest in my company / whatever" type threads. Reminds me of this one...

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/the-non-linear-plasma-reactor/msg4210558/#msg4210558

 

[Hydro]

When did you get this feeling?
After the article with scientific justification was published?
Or earlier ?

[Andy Chee]

If you're short on time, then don't read it.
It will be better

And on this principle it is possible to construct a kinematically more advanced design.

It is not possible because.... physics.

Andy Chee
I'll give you a couple of days to find the error here.
Then I'll post the rest of the article.
It's not as simple as this anymore

I read the whole article, people can read it here:

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/a-highly-efficient-method-for-deriving-energy-from-a-free-flow-liquid-on-the-basis-of-the-specific-hydrodynamic-effect

The only reason you held back, is because you are hiding something.  What are you hiding?

[Hydro]

I'm not hiding anything, I'll show everything.
And the following articles in this series.
Have you seen them?

I just try to keep things gradual.
Do you have any objections or did you find errors on the first three pages?
Maybe someone else will find it.
If not, then I’ll put the rest of the pages

[Andy Chee]

Do you have any objections or did you find errors on the first three pages?

The derivation of equations (5) and (6) are incorrect.

[Hydro]

Where is the mistake ?
The article is not new. No one has ever found an error in these equations.

What should be correct in your opinion?

[Andy Chee]

Where is the mistake ?

If you can't see it, then there's no way you will understand my explanation.

[Hydro]

I'll try to understand.
Well, or I’ll send your explanation to the specialists.
Try to explain, please.

[soldar]

I'll try to understand.
Well, or I’ll send your explanation to the specialists.
Try to explain, please.

I believe you are wasting precious energy here. You have come to the wrong place and you have the wrong audience here. You are just spinning your wheels.

There are probably better places in the Internet where you can go pitch this nonsense.

[eutectique]

If anyone is interested, I will try to explain the principle of operation as I understand it

I would love to see the explanations.

[Hydro]

I believe you are wasting precious energy here. You have come to the wrong place and you have the wrong audience here. You are just spinning your wheels.

There are probably better places in the Internet where you can go pitch this nonsense.

After all, no one is dragging you here on a lasso.
If you don't want to, don't look.
There are a hundred topics here that are not interesting to me and that I don’t go to and don’t waste time on.
I recommend that you do the same with this one - you will save both time and energy.
Spend it on topics that are useful to you.
For cats, for example....

[Hydro]

If anyone is interested, I will try to explain the principle of operation as I understand it

I would love to see the explanations.

Yes, sure.
Please.

[Andy Chee]

If anyone is interested, I will try to explain the principle of operation as I understand it

I would love to see the explanations.

Yes, sure.
Please.

Your posted images show Mr. G.V. Treshchalov's explanation.

What is YOUR explanation Mr. Hydro?  I don't think you understand it, that's why you keep hiding the complete document.  That's why I can't be bothered explaining the errors, it's much too difficult for you.

[Hydro]

Do it. I'll send it to him
He will answer when he is free.

It is not difficult to post the entire document and I will do it when the questions regarding this part are clarified.

If you want, you can post the entire document now if you have it.
I do not mind.

[Hydro]

Your posted images show Mr. G.V. Treshchalov's explanation.

What is YOUR explanation Mr. Hydro?  I don't think you understand it, that's why you keep hiding the complete document.  That's why I can't be bothered explaining the errors, it's much too difficult for you.

Then don’t waste time, use point 4 of the FORUM RULES.

4) Don't take things too seriously, chill out, life is short, have a laugh.

Or send these comments directly to the author of the article. It seems his address is there.

[IanB]

I'll show you the calculation.
You will have the opportunity to disprove it using physics.

This is really not how things work. The onus is on you to prove it using your physics.

None of us have any reason to put time into it, since we didn't start the topic and we don't care about it. It is your topic that you started, that you care about. So you have to make the case for it. Posting some kind of wacky, complicated paper is not making a case.

[tggzzz]

I'll show you the calculation.
You will have the opportunity to disprove it using physics.

If you make extraordinary claims, then you have to provide extraordinary proof.

That's the way it has always been, since it allows competent people to produce competent results. The alternative is competent people wasting all their time refuting rubbish.

[Andy Chee]

Given that you live in Pakistan, you may not have heard of the health technology company Theranos who invented the "Edison" fingerprick blood testing machine.

Basically you are doing the same thing as Theranos i.e. you are making claims without proof. 

And no, a single theoretical paper (with errors) is not proof.

[Hydro]

I'll show you the calculation.
You will have the opportunity to disprove it using physics.

If you make extraordinary claims, then you have to provide extraordinary proof.

That's the way it has always been, since it allows competent people to produce competent results. The alternative is competent people wasting all their time refuting rubbish.

What extraordinary claims have I made?
I showed a working free flow turbine

Why did you decide that evidence needs to be presented this way?
Usually, for this purpose, they refer to physics textbooks or scientific articles.
What am I doing.
What extraordinary do you see in this article?
Are there any objections to the article?

If you consider yourself a competent specialist, then competently refute it.
You can write a scientific article. This is exactly how science works.

[soldar]

I'll show you the calculation.
You will have the opportunity to disprove it using physics.

This is really not how things work. The onus is on you to prove it using your physics.

None of us have any reason to put time into it, since we didn't start the topic and we don't care about it. It is your topic that you started, that you care about. So you have to make the case for it. Posting some kind of wacky, complicated paper is not making a case.

Don Lancaster used to get all sorts of crazy overunity ideas and I remember him saying something to the effect of "Dont, send them to me, don't ask me to prove you wrong, I am not going to spend time on it, maybe even if I tried I could not spot the error, I don't care, it's in there and the fact that I cannot spot it does not make your idea valid, just do not waste my time with overunity ideas."

"If your device seems to give over unity efficiency it is because you are not accounting for all energy input and output. For example, I get from my car 1000 miles to the gallon ... of windshield wiper fluid."

[Hydro]

"If your device seems to give over unity efficiency it is because you are not accounting for all energy input and output. For example, I get from my car 1000 miles to the gallon ... of windshield wiper fluid."

Did I say that???
Wake up!
Everything there is based on the elementary law of conservation.
Here is the continuation of the article. It’s written there in black and white, if anyone hasn’t understood yet.
It takes into account both incoming and outgoing energy.

[BravoV]

Just straight to the point will ya ? ... How much do you need to start ?

[eutectique]

I would love to see the explanations.

Yes, sure.
Please.

Thank you.

Perhaps, this explanation brought you to some conclusions, practical or otherwise.

Would you please share them in 3-6 sentences?

[Hydro]

Thank you.

Perhaps, this explanation brought you to some conclusions, practical or otherwise.

Would you please share them in 3-6 sentences?

It can be done in one sentence.
"A principle has been developed on which free-flow hydraulic turbines of various designs can be designed with increased energy efficiency"

[Hydro]

Just straight to the point will ya ? ... How much do you need to start ?

What are you about ?
How many sentences do I need to explain the principle of operation?
I already said above - one thing

[eutectique]

It can be done in one sentence.
"A principle has been developed on which free-flow hydraulic turbines of various designs can be designed with increased energy efficiency"

Good. Anything else to discuss here?

[Hydro]

Yes.
Did you want to leave?
All the best !
See you again!

[eutectique]

Yes.
Did you want to leave?
All the best !
See you again!

I will stay, thank you.

[Hydro]

If no one has anything to say about this article.
Then I'll show you another couple of them.
There are already more complex specific hydraulic terms.

[ebastler]

I don't understand your goal in this overall discussion. If you believe in this stuff, go ahead and invest in it (your money and/or your time) and get rich! Why do you feel the need to convince a bunch of strangers on an internet forum?

[Hydro]

Everything is moving.
And here is the goal:

FORUM RULES

"Open sharing of ideas and content is important. Links to and promotion of other forums and content IS ENCOURAGED! (this isn't a jealously protected forum, unlike some others)"

[ebastler]

If that was meant to be an answer to my question, I am sorry to say it is not. I would appreciate if you could explain what motivated you to join this forum specifically to advocate this technology, and what you expect to get out of this.

You are under no obligation to do that, of course, but a plausible explanation might help your standing.

[IanB]

Here is the continuation of the article. It’s written there in black and white, if anyone hasn’t understood yet.

There is nothing in that article of substance from an engineering point of view. It has no reference to prior art, no comparisons, and no meaningful numbers. It looks nothing like a scientific paper.

[Hydro]

If that was meant to be an answer to my question, I am sorry to say it is not. I would appreciate if you could explain what motivated you to join this forum specifically to advocate this technology,

Answer - popularization this idea.
Do you think this is bad?

and what you expect to get out of this.

What I expected is what I get - answers, reactions, opinions etc.

[Canis Dirus Leidy]

Звучит гимн Союза Советских Социалистических Республик:

[Andy Chee]

Закон сохранения энергии в гидродинамике vs понятие альтернативной энергии. Критические заметки по поводу статьи «Альтернативная энергетика vs лженаука»
и цитированных и нецитированных в ней работ.

The law of conservation of energy in hydrodynamics vs the concept of alternative energy. Critical notes on the article “Alternative energy vs pseudoscience”
and works cited and uncited therein.

[ebastler]

I don't think this proposal conflicts with the conservation of energy. I just think it is not very practical.

You can, of course, design a device which extracts energy from water by using the difference in the water's potential energy (i.e. a height difference) rather than its kinetic energy. And you can arrange things such that the water flow speed is higher after the device than in front of it. This device is called a dam. 

And you can, of course, create a "dynamic dam" by putting some obstruction into flowing water. This will also create a height difference behind vs. before the obstruction, and a speed difference (because you slow down the flow in front of the obstruction). By letting some water flow through a little turbine or whatever other mechanism you fancy, I'm sure you can extract some power.

I have no idea whether and how the guys in the initial video are connected with the guy who wrote that paper. Their contraption with the "blades on a belt" seems like a very inefficient way to create an obstruction in flowing water and extract some power from it.

[tggzzz]

Thank you.

Perhaps, this explanation brought you to some conclusions, practical or otherwise.

Would you please share them in 3-6 sentences?

It can be done in one sentence.
"A principle has been developed on which free-flow hydraulic turbines of various designs can be designed with increased energy efficiency"

So what? Principles mean absolutely nothing until they have been demonstrated to be correct and independently duplicated.

Science 101:

• observe something
• develop a principle/hypothesis that explains the observation
• based on the principle/hypothesis, make a prediction that can be proved and disproved
• develop a test that for that prediction, ensuring it proves or disproves the prediction
• do the test
• publish the principle, the prediction, the test, and the test results in sufficient detail that someone else can duplicate them
• if necessary, return to (2)

So far you have only mentioned step two. Where are steps 3,4,5,6,7 documented?

[IanB]

You can, of course, design a device which extracts energy from water by using the difference in the water's potential energy (i.e. a height difference) rather than its kinetic energy.

Practical hydro-power units make use of elevation difference (head, potential energy), since this is much more useful energetically than velocity (kinetic energy).

For example, to change the elevation of 1 kg of water by 1 m corresponds to a potential energy change of 9.8 J. To change the kinetic energy of that 1 kg of water by the same 9.8 J you would have to accelerate it to 4.4 m/s or 16 km/h, which is much faster than the typical flow velocity of a river, which would typically be only a fraction of that.

Therefore practical small scale hydro-systems (like water wheels) divert the water down a side channel while the river falls, and then let the water descend back to the river over the wheel, using gravity to do the work.

Well engineered hydraulic turbines can have a mechanical efficiency around 90%, so there are only marginal gains to be made by improving on this. Claims of a 3x improvement in efficiency would only hold water if the original efficiency was less than 30%, which is terrible by most standards.

In any hydro-power system, if the water leaves the apparatus at high velocity it is taking kinetic energy with it and therefore reducing the efficiency.

[Hydro]

I don't think this proposal conflicts with the conservation of energy.

I think so too. Or rather, I'm sure of it

This device is called a dam.

The fact of the matter is that it is without a dam

I have no idea whether and how the guys in the initial video are connected with the guy who wrote that paper. Their contraption with the "blades on a belt" seems like a very ineffective way to create an obstruction in flowing water and extract some power from it.

The guy who wrote the article, in my opinion, did not show any design at all, only a diagram.
Does the guy’s contraption from this video also seem ineffective to you?

[ebastler]

The fact of the matter is that it is without a dam

Are you able to read more than one paragraph? I wrote another one. They are not that long.

Does the guy’s contraption from this video also seem ineffective to you?

I don't think I want to jump through every hoop you hold up, and I certainly don't want to download some surprise video. Unsubscribing from this thread now.

[soldar]

Does the guy’s contraption from this video also seem ineffective to you?

[soldar]

Their contraption with the "blades on a belt" seems like a very inefficient way to create an obstruction in flowing water and extract some power from it.

All the time we are faced in the news with inventions that will revolutionize the world... or so we are told. Young reporters, who do not know the difference between a V and a W or between their ass and a hole in the ground, report the new found miracle and the public mostly doesn't care much except for a few who really want to believe. The believe a loner in his home has come up with something which escaped the developers and investigators of companies who spend millions on R&D.

A few months back, in Spain, we had to hear the case of a young engineer inventor who had "invented" a reverse turbine for airplanes with the blades pointing inwards from a belt. The reporter did not feel the need to consult with anybody who actually works in this field, some jet engine builder, no, the young kid talking to her was totally convincing.

https://www.elespanol.com/omicrono/tecnologia/20230205/invento-espanol-revolucionara-aviones-gracias-ingeniero-cordobes/736176474_0.html

https://s1.eestatic.com/2023/01/31/omicrono/tecnologia/737936338_230530709_1706x960.jpg

[langwadt]

Their contraption with the "blades on a belt" seems like a very inefficient way to create an obstruction in flowing water and extract some power from it.

All the time we are faced in the news with inventions that will revolutionize the world... or so we are told. Young reporters, who do not know the difference between a V and a W or between their ass and a hole in the ground, report the new found miracle and the public mostly doesn't care much except for a few who really want to believe. The believe a loner in his home has come up with something which escaped the developers and investigators of companies who spend millions on R&D.

A few months back, in Spain, we had to hear the case of a young engineer inventor who had "invented" a reverse turbine for airplanes with the blades pointing inwards from a belt. The reporter did not feel the need to consult with anybody who actually works in this field, some jet engine builder, no, the young kid talking to her was totally convincing.

https://www.elespanol.com/omicrono/tecnologia/20230205/invento-espanol-revolucionara-aviones-gracias-ingeniero-cordobes/736176474_0.html

https://s1.eestatic.com/2023/01/31/omicrono/tecnologia/737936338_230530709_1706x960.jpg

well it would "solve" the real problem of a fitting a bigger fans for more efficiency, under the wings of current plans, but at the cost of adding a bunch of unsolvable problems  making it totally pointless... Rube Goldberg would be proud

[soldar]

well it would "solve" the real problem of a fitting a bigger fans for more efficiency, under the wings of current plans, but at the cost of adding a bunch of unsolvable problems  making it totally pointless... Rube Goldberg would be proud

I think some engineers, some people, fall in love with some idea they had and they just want to find the problem they could solve with this "solution" so they keep looking for the problem which would be solved by their solution which is no solution at all.

I admit I am somewhat guilty of it. Sometimes I am not really looking for a simple or practical solution but for an ingenious or elegant solution.

[Infraviolet]

" I think some engineers, some people, fall in love with some idea they had and they just want to find the problem they could solve with this "solution" "
Even worse is when governments gets caught up in this kind of thinking.

[SiliconWizard]

Isn't this what we're currently doing with AI?

[Hydro]

I don't think this proposal conflicts with the conservation of energy. I just think it is not very practical.
..........
I have no idea whether and how the guys in the initial video are connected with the guy who wrote that paper. Their contraption with the "blades on a belt" seems like a very ineffective way to create an obstruction in flowing water and extract some power from it.

I take it that no more questions have arisen so far?
So far it has only been proven that all this does not contradict the law of conservation of energy and that the shown design does seem like a very inefficient.

But It seems to me that in this article the author draws attention precisely to the principle of operation, focusing not on the design of this device, but on the fact that various designs of such devices can be developed on this principle.
Probably this design was taken as an example in which it was easiest to explain the principle.

No questions anymore ?
May I continue?

[Hydro]

Звучит гимн Союза Советских Социалистических Республик:
(Attachment Link)

What is it ?
Is this in Polish?

[Andy Chee]

Звучит гимн Союза Советских Социалистических Республик:
(Attachment Link)

What is it ?
Is this in Polish?

It's the same language as Mr. GV Treshchalov.

[Hydro]

Звучит гимн Союза Советских Социалистических Республик:
(Attachment Link)

What is it ?
Is this in Polish?

It's the same language as Mr. GV Treshchalov.

Is he Polish or Serbian?
Like Nikola Tesla?

[Hydro]

In my opinion this is not Polish.
Polish doesn't seem to be Latin

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Budushchee-energetiki-Imploziya-vs-Eksploziya/dp/3659359793/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1704710531&refinements=p_27%3AGerman+Treshchalov&s=books&sr=1-1&text=German+Treshchalov


.... although the cover is not in Latin.
Is this Cyrillic?

[Andy Chee]

Звучит гимн Союза Советских Социалистических Республик:
(Attachment Link)

What is it ?
Is this in Polish?

It's the same language as Mr. GV Treshchalov.

Is he Polish or Serbian?
Like Nikola Tesla?

Ask Mr. GV Treshchalov yourself, his contact details are in your article.

A HIGHLY EFFICIENT METHOD FOR DERIVING ENERGY FROM A FREE-FLOW
LIQUID ON THE BASIS OF THE SPECIFIC HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECT
G.V. Treshchalov
Engineering and Research Group (“ERG”)
Kara-Kamish-2/1-3-43, Tashkent, 100098, Uzbekistan
Tel./fax: (99871) 2790590; e-mail: t-ger@mail.ru

[Hydro]

I don't see the need.
Whether he is a Pole or a Serb or anyone else - it doesn’t matter.

Did you write to him that you found errors in his formulas?

[Andy Chee]

I don't see the need.

Then why did you ask about language?

Did you write to him that you found errors in his formulas?

I don't need to write to him.  I'm not interested in his research.

[Hydro]

I don't see the need.

Then why did you ask about language?

Rhetorically

Did you write to him that you found errors in his formulas?

I don't need to write to him.  I'm not interested in his research.

Fine.
You won't wait for the continuation?
It's even more interesting there.

[Hydro]

I looked for his profile.
Is it him or someone else?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/germantreshchalov/

This is Uzbekistan, former Russia.

[Hydro]

I wanted to ask this question to everyone present.
Why does everyone understand the essence of the problem so differently?
Some are sure that there is no violation of the laws of physics here, and some for some reason think that some kind of “over-unity” arises here?

Can each of you describe on the basis of what inferences such conclusions are made and why?

[Hydro]

You won't wait for the continuation?
It's even more interesting there.

In my system this language is defined as Serbian. The automatic translation seems to be clear.

[Canis Dirus Leidy]

What is it ?

An article about a DIY free-flow power plant from an old Soviet magazine for secondary school age kids.

P.S. HTML-edition of this article and reincarnation from the Nineties (Вариант №3).

[Hydro]

Doesn't this look like their design?

[Andy Chee]

Doesn't this look like their design?

No.

Your first diagram is a vertical axis design.  Your Youtube video is a horizontal axis design.

They are completely different.

[Andy Chee]

I think it’s not a matter of vertical or horizontal axes, but the principle of transforming the flow of water.

It matters A LOT!!!  The entire theory is based on "layers" of pressure caused by gravity.  Such layers are IMPOSSIBLE to extract energy from vertical axis!!!

[Hydro]

I think the point is not in the vertical or horizontal axes, but in the principle of transforming the flow of water.
Does it look like that?
There are no axes at all.

[Hydro]

I think it’s not a matter of vertical or horizontal axes, but the principle of transforming the flow of water.

It matters A LOT!!!  The entire theory is based on "layers" of pressure caused by gravity.  Such layers are IMPOSSIBLE to extract energy from vertical axis!!!

As far as I understand, the energy is obtained not from the axes (vertical or horizontal), but from the flow of water.
At the beginning of the topic, a machine with a vertical axis is shown.

It seems like you didn’t have any questions about it, except that it’s kinematically awkward.

[Andy Chee]

I think it’s not a matter of vertical or horizontal axes, but the principle of transforming the flow of water.

It matters A LOT!!!  The entire theory is based on "layers" of pressure caused by gravity.  Such layers are IMPOSSIBLE to extract energy from vertical axis!!!

As far as I understand, the energy is obtained not from the axes (vertical or horizontal), but from the flow of water.
At the beginning of the topic, a machine with a vertical axis is shown.

It seems like you didn’t have any questions about it, except that it’s kinematically awkward.

It shows that you don’t understand Mr GV Treshalov’s theory at all.

[Hydro]

Have you figured it out well? What's my mistake"  ?
In Mr GV Treshalov’s theory there are no axes at all.
He only shows a “black box” under which anything can be hidden.

[Andy Chee]

What's my mistake"  ?
In Mr GV Treshalov’s theory there are no axes at all.
He only shows a “black box” under which anything can be hidden.

Your mistake is that you don’t understand  Mr GV Treschalov’s equations.

I understand his equations, and that’s why I know there’s a mistake.

[Hydro]

What's my mistake"  ?
In Mr GV Treshalov’s theory there are no axes at all.
He only shows a “black box” under which anything can be hidden.

Your mistake is that you don’t understand  Mr GV Treschalov’s equations.

I understand his equations, and that’s why I know there’s a mistake.

There are no “axes” in the equations and they are not taken into account in any way.
Please tell us how you understood them.

Share your knowledge with us.

[Andy Chee]

What's my mistake"  ?
In Mr GV Treshalov’s theory there are no axes at all.
He only shows a “black box” under which anything can be hidden.

Your mistake is that you don’t understand  Mr GV Treschalov’s equations.

I understand his equations, and that’s why I know there’s a mistake.

There are no “axes” in the equations and they are not taken into account in any way.
Please tell us how you understood them.

Share your knowledge with us.

Mr GV Treshchalov's equations use gravitational potential difference (like all hydro systems).

A vertical axis turbine like your picture, has ZERO gravity difference between the upstream blade and downstream blade.  A vertical axis turbine does NOT rely on gravity, it relies on flow differential (which could be created with an obstruction, or hydrofoil blade geometry).

If you don't understand that, then you will definitely not understand the mistake he makes.

[Hydro]

Where did you see some “horizontal” or "vertical" axes, if in the device at the beginning of the topic they are vertical ??
Do you have any doubts that it works? Open your eyes!

I repeat - there are NO AXES in his equations!
Where did you get them there?



If you don't understand that, then I don't understand at all - what are you doing here??

[Hydro]

Mr GV Treshchalov's equations use gravitational potential difference (like all hydro systems).

I think this is true.
Do you know that in all hydro systems that use gravitational potential difference there can be turbines with completely different axes - horizontal, vertical, longitudinal, transverse etc.
But none of the energy equations of hydraulic turbines are NEVER AFFECTED by the orientation of the turbine axes!
Do you know that ?

If you don't understand that, then I can't help you.

[Andy Chee]

But none of the energy equations of hydraulic turbines are NEVER AFFECTED by the orientation of the turbine axes!
Do you know that ?

If you don't understand that, then I can't help you.

I don't need help.  I am not attempting to promote a hydro design.

You however seem to need a lot of help, because you have convinced no-one.

[Hydro]

I understand you - you are "no one".
And you need help to understand that I AM NOT OFFERING ANY DESIGN.
It is offered by those who manufactured these turbines and those who wrote the article.
 
But I can't help you to understand it - sorry.

[Hydro]

[Hydro]

I found another article on the topic...

Previous ones are here
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/unusual-design-of-a-free-flow-hydropower-station/msg5268390/#msg5268390

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/unusual-design-of-a-free-flow-hydropower-station/msg5257110/#msg5257110

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/unusual-design-of-a-free-flow-hydropower-station/msg5255157/#msg5255157

[Hydro]

What does this mean?

  « Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:52:54 am by gnif »

Who can edit my messages and why?

[AVGresponding]

Mods and Admin can edit your posts, and will be doing it because you are posting something that goes against the forum rules.

[Hydro]

Thanx
Is gnif a moderator?
OK, I didn't know.

But I don’t see anything that my post was edited - as I put it, that’s how it is.
It's strange that you could edit there without editing anything.

[Hydro]

Mods and Admin can edit your posts, and will be doing it because you are posting something that goes against the forum rules.

AVGresponding
I didn't read your message very carefully.

Do you think that I am  posting something that goes against the forum rules ??

Please clarify - what exactly?

[AVGresponding]

How should I know? Go read the forum rules, and apply them to your posts.

[Hydro]

I have read the rules and follow them exactly
Therefore, my messages are not deleted or edited.

The admins didn't tell me that I was violating anything.
For some reason you said it.

[IanB]

gnif administers the forum software and database. There were recently some upgrades that might have required fixing some image references in posts, so it is possible that your post was updated to maintain the correct appearance after the upgrade. Just a guess.

[Hydro]

Do you have any objections or did you find errors on the first three pages?

The derivation of equations (5) and (6) are incorrect.

Andy Chee, so what's with the errors in the equations?
Have you found them?

As you can see, these equations have been derived by other scientists and in other ways.
Moreover, the basic equation of hydropower is derived from this equation.

Will you oppose the entire hydropower industry?

[Andy Chee]

Do you have any objections or did you find errors on the first three pages?

The derivation of equations (5) and (6) are incorrect.

Andy Chee, so what's with the errors in the equations?
Have you found them?

As you can see, these equations have been derived by other scientists and in other ways.

Which scientists?  You've just quoted Mr G.V. Treschcalov's article again.

[Hydro]

Do you have any objections or did you find errors on the first three pages?

The derivation of equations (5) and (6) are incorrect.

Andy Chee, so what's with the errors in the equations?
Have you found them?

As you can see, these equations have been derived by other scientists and in other ways.

Which scientists?  You've just quoted Mr G.V. Treschcalov's article again.

As far as I can tell, he was referring to some scientist from Michigan who came up with Equation #3 and the basic hydropower equation that has been known for 100 years or more.

Or am I wrong?

[gnif]

What does this mean?

  « Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:52:54 am by gnif »

Who can edit my messages and why?

Just saw this sorry. I had intended to delete a different post and had too many tabs open, as such I modified the wrong one. The edit comment is just to state that something was changed, where in reality here nothing was, I just undid my mistake. Sorry about that.

[Hydro]

What does this mean?

  « Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:52:54 am by gnif »

Who can edit my messages and why?

Just saw this sorry. I had intended to delete a different post and had too many tabs open, as such I modified the wrong one. The edit comment is just to state that something was changed, where in reality here nothing was, I just undid my mistake. Sorry about that.

No problem.
Looks like we've already sorted it out.
Thanks for the apology. 

[Hydro]

Do you have any objections or did you find errors on the first three pages?

The derivation of equations (5) and (6) are incorrect.

Andy Chee, so what's with the errors in the equations?
Have you found them?

As you can see, these equations have been derived by other scientists and in other ways.

Which scientists?  You've just quoted Mr G.V. Treschcalov's article again.

As far as I can tell, he was referring to some scientist from Michigan who came up with Equation #3 and the basic hydropower equation that has been known for 100 years or more.

Or am I wrong?

Based on the lack of objections, I can conclude that I am right.

By the way, I think I found that article by a specialist from Michigan who derived the equation.
Strange, but it is also in Serbian.
I'll try to translate.

[Hydro]

Andy Chee, so what's with the errors in the equations?
Have you found them?

As you can see, these equations have been derived by other scientists and in other ways.


As far as I can tell, he was referring to some scientist from Michigan who came up with Equation #3 and the basic hydropower equation that has been known for 100 years or more.

By the way, I think I found that article by a specialist from Michigan who derived the equation.
Strange, but it is also in Serbian.
I'll try to translate.

This is how the translation from Serbian turned out.
Google doesn't translate better.
But it seems clear.
Any objections?

[Hydro]

Do you have any objections or did you find errors on the first three pages?

The derivation of equations (5) and (6) are incorrect.

Well, the opponent was  finaly blown away.
Andy Chee still haven't found the error ?

[AVGresponding]

I think he just doesn't see the point in answering you, given you clearly are not able to understand the maths involved. Feel free to continue your pointless spam posting of this technology, but no-one on this forum will give you any money.

@mods, surely this nonsense belongs in the dodgy technology section, along with solar roadways etc?

[Hydro]

I think he just doesn't see the point in answering you, given you clearly are not able to understand the maths involved.

Are you his lawyer? Is he not able to answer for his words himself ?
It is not me who needs to answer, but those specialists who compiled these articles and derived the equations.
One of them, as far as can be seen, is an employee of the University of Michigan.
Do you think that they also understand things worse than the clowns on this forum?

Feel free to continue your pointless spam posting of this technology, but no-one on this forum will give you any money.

Open your eyes - I'm not asking you for any money.
And that is not the purpose of the forum at all.

@mods, surely this nonsense belongs in the dodgy technology section, along with solar roadways etc?

So you don’t even know what we’re talking about?
What are you doing here then?
Do you work as a lawyer here?

[Hydro]

 Feel free to continue your pointless spam posting of this technology,

By the way, the good thing is that you understand that this is technology, and not mere chatter.
This is already a progress in your understanding.

[Kasper]

Well, actually, for now I’m only talking about the fact that - Behind the turbine, the water has a speed 2-3 times greater than the flow entering the turbine.
How can this provide power and also accelerate the flow?

Here's another video, it's more clear here.

First, define 'speed' and also 'flow'. 

Then ask, how can current output from buck SMPS be higher than current input?

[Hydro]

What is "buck SMPS"?
What do you mean by "current"?
Who should I ask?

[Kasper]

What is "buck SMPS"?
What do you mean by "current"?
Who should I ask?

Buck SMPS is an electronics circuit.  Plenty of definitions on google and probably in the beginners section of this forum.

[pcprogrammer]

Based on the lack of objections, I can conclude that I am right.

I did not want to participate in this thread, but boy is someone here full of himself and blind for what is obvious.

What is "buck SMPS"?
What do you mean by "current"?
Who should I ask?

The fact that you can't even see analogies between different technologies proves the above.

There is no need to go deep into the given formulas, the real world test shown in the first video you presented gives enough evidence that it does not bring what is expected. The mechanism is stopped with little effort of the guy in the water next to the device, so how can it then drive a generator to provide several KW of electrical energy?

But my conclusion of this whole thread and the other one about the use of waterwheels is that you are an attention seeker, and most of the frequent users of this forum don't want to play with you.

[Hydro]

Based on the lack of objections, I can conclude that I am right.

I did not want to participate in this thread, but boy is someone here full of himself and blind for what is obvious.


The fact that you can't even see analogies between different technologies proves the above.

There is no need to go deep into the given formulas, the real world test shown in the first video you presented gives enough evidence that it does not bring what is expected. The mechanism is stopped with little effort of the guy in the water next to the device, so how can it then drive a generator to provide several KW of electrical energy?

But my conclusion of this whole thread and the other one about the use of waterwheels is that you are an attention seeker, and most of the frequent users of this forum don't want to play with you.

1. There are definitely analogies between electric current and water flow. But they are never complete.
This is exactly the case if you haven't noticed.

2. The video shows a turbine with a height of 50 cm. If you had bothered to delve a little deeper into the topic, even for a minute, and did not make hasty conclusions, you would have seen that as the height of the turbine increases, the power increases to the cubic degree.
Look here https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/unusual-design-of-a-free-flow-hydropower-station/msg5281537/#msg5281537
Pay attention to the numbers on the tables there. They are even specially allocated for you.

3. I don’t need your attention and I’m not going to play with anyone. But you still play...
But I’m not dragging anyone here on a lasso.
If you don't want to play, pass by. The topic about cats is just for you.

[Hydro]

Feel free to continue your pointless spam posting of this technology, but no-one on this forum will give you any money.

I don’t know why you suddenly decided to talk about some kind of money, although there was not even a hint of this in my messages.
But you intrigue me. I'll think about it.

In the meantime, you think about this.
Your consciousness has already reached the understanding that this is technology.
Your consciousness still needs to take a tiny step to understand that this is not just technology, but a highly effective and promising technology.

But don’t tense up and relax - your consciousness itself will take this step to understand the essence of things.

This is called "Overton window".

Again.
This gives someone the false impression that I need some attention.
I repeat - I don’t need the attention of amateurs and clowns !
If you are not able to carefully read at least the essence of the topic, and you have nothing substantive to say, then it is better to pass by.

[tggzzz]

It is becoming difficult for me to distinguish Hydro from a troll. That's troll as in  http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/t/troll.html , not the lazy journalism sense.

EDIT: an alternative is "fanatic", as in "A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject", often attributed to WinstonChurchill https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/01/fanatic/

[Kasper]

I know what is it.
I just asked you, maybe you meant something else, because in this topic we are talking about water, which has nothing to do with electric current and buck SMPS.

Thought maybe you were just lost?

When I learned electronics, I used analogies of fluids in pipes to wrap my head around it.  Later, I learned fluids and used my electronics knowledge to wrap my head around it.

You haven't defined what you mean by 'speed' and 'flow' so it's hard to talk fluids.  I hoped that being on EEVBLOG forum meant you are familiar with electronics and that would help you learn fluids.

Some basic equations that describe electronics also work for fluids and mechanical systems.  Boost SMPS for example are quite similar to ram pumps.  Buck SMPS are similar to dams.

Seems you have focussed solely on the topic, fluids, and not the broader picture, we are on EEVBLOG forum.

Much like how focussing on current makes it seem like a buck SMPS breaks some conservation rule, if you fail to see the broader picture: power.  It is power that is bound by a conservation rule, current can increase but power output can not be greater than power input.

[pcprogrammer]

This gives someone the false impression that I need some attention.
I repeat - I don’t need the attention of amateurs and clowns !
If you are not able to carefully read at least the essence of the topic, and you have nothing substantive to say, then it is better to pass by.

Why else are you actively pushing this on this forum then. In the end we all like attention.

But calling us amateurs and clowns make you the one who is ignorant. Sure I'm no expert in the field of hydro power, but do have a reasonable understanding of physics, and it all boils down to that.

The whole premise of the systems described is about releasing the potential energy from water be it flowing or still standing. The only way to achieve this is with a difference in height and that can only be very small in all the new so called promising structures described here, resulting in not a lot of gain over a traditional system.

But you are so convinced that these new methods are the golden ticket to a better future that your mind has been made up.

The argument that the device in the first video is only a small scale experiment to prove a point and that up scaling will definitely make it better, is in my perspective a load of garbage, because up scaling will bring other problems with friction and finding locations to even be able to apply it if it works, that it is like being on a road to nowhere.

But I will leave you be in most likely a soon to be empty space.

[Hydro]

Why else are you actively pushing this on this forum then. In the end we all like attention.

We all like attention. But not the attention of amateurs and clowns.
That's exactly what I said.

But calling us amateurs and clowns make you the one who is ignorant.

It is not calling things by their proper names that is considered ignorant, but amateurism that wants to appear significant.

I don’t call anyone in particular amateurs and clowns. I call amateurs and clowns precisely those amateurs and clowns who make statements without citing facts, documents, or calculations.
Then everyone can determine their status based on this.

You make such statements. (so determine your status yourself).
But this is no longer my problem, but more yours.

Sure I'm no expert in the field of hydro power, but do have a reasonable understanding of physics, and it all boils down to that.
..........
The argument that the device in the first video is only a small scale experiment to prove a point and that up scaling will definitely make it better, is in my perspective a load of garbage, because up scaling will bring other problems with friction and finding locations to even be able to apply it if it works, that it is like being on a road to nowhere.

If you do have a reasonable understanding of physics, then you should know perfectly well what the “critical mass” is in a nuclear reaction. So size matters.
As the size increases, other technical and engineering difficulties inevitably arise, but this in no way denies the importance of nuclear reactions and the performance of nuclear reactors and power plants.

By declaring that upscaling (no matter what) is a load of garbage, without calculations and arguments, you put yourself in the above status.

But you are so convinced that these new methods are the golden ticket to a better future that your mind has been made up.

But I will leave you in most likely a soon to be empty space.

The place will not remain empty. It will only be freed from the opinions of amateurs and clowns, and this is even for the better.
But it will never be empty.
It is viewed by a lot of people who are not amateurs and clowns, but who have nothing to say or object to the topic. They only receive information and understand it.

Again.
The “Overton window” (understanding the essence of things) does not open immediately.
If you are an inquisitive and intelligent person, then just be patient, get information, compare the facts, analyze where you need it or have doubts - do the math yourself.
The Overton Window will open and you will understand the essence.
It was the same with me

[Hydro]

1. There are definitely analogies between electric current and water flow. But they are never complete.
This is exactly the case if you haven't noticed.

When I learned electronics, I used analogies of fluids in pipes to wrap my head around it.  Later, I learned fluids and used my electronics knowledge to wrap my head around it.

You haven't defined what you mean by 'speed' and 'flow' so it's hard to talk fluids.  I hoped that being on EEVBLOG forum meant you are familiar with electronics and that would help you learn fluids.

Some basic equations that describe electronics also work for fluids and mechanical systems.  Boost SMPS for example are quite similar to ram pumps.  Buck SMPS are similar to dams.

Seems you have focussed solely on the topic, fluids, and not the broader picture, we are on EEVBLOG forum.

Much like how focussing on current makes it seem like a buck SMPS breaks some conservation rule, if you fail to see the broader picture: power.  It is power that is bound by a conservation rule, current can increase but power output can not be greater than power input.

Fine.
Let's do this.
I will now give you a dozen analogies between hydrodynamics and electrical engineering.
And then I will give you the terms of hydrodynamics and you yourself will have to find analogies for them.
When you'll say that you cannot do this, I will explain to you why.

So.

Direct current = fluid flow in a pipe
Alternating current - there are no analogies in hydrodynamics
Active power - flow power
Reactive power - there are no analogies in hydrodynamics
current =  flow rate in the pipe
voltage = static pressure, dam height, pump pressure
Kirchhoff's circuit laws (in a particular case - Ohm's Law) = Bernoulli's Equation
wire thickness = pipe cross-section
resistance = pipe wall roughness
electric motor = hydraulic turbine
electric generator = water pump
electric arc = water hammer
upd.......
inductor - long pipe
battery, capacitor - reservoir, tank, dam


Now you....

gravity flow, free water
Turbulent
laminar
critical flow
subcritical flow
law of continuity of flow.
channel depth/width (note - they are by no means equivalent)
flow speed (this is not flow rate)
Reynolds number
Froud number
Prandtl number
gravity acceleration
hydraulic jump

[Kasper]

That's neat, even though I didn't ask and I don't agree with it all, I appreciate your efforts.

[Hydro]

That's neat, even though I didn't ask and I don't agree with it all, I appreciate your efforts.

Yes, no effort, just offhand. Maybe somewhere is inaccurate.
I forgot to insert the inductor and capacitor.
I'll correct it.

And where you saw an inaccuracy, please correct it too. It will be useful. -  if not to us, but to someone else.
Thank you.

And I will explain why there are no analogies in electricity for the lower terms.
The fact is that there are analogies for pressure flow in a pipe.
There are no analogies for a gravity (free) flow (except perhaps with magnetism, but this is not certain).
And that is precisely what we are considering here.

[Andy Chee]

The “Overton window” (understanding the essence of things) does not open immediately.

Overton window is a psychological phenomena, not a technique for acquiring and understanding scientific and/or engineering knowledge.

Moon landing conspiracists, perpetual motion, free energy, and HHO experimenters, attempt to use the same psychological strategy to promote their so-called scientific analysis to mainstream.  In reality, their logic is flawed.

[Hydro]

Overton window is a psychological phenomena, not a technique for acquiring and understanding scientific and/or engineering knowledge.

But how did I write it?
Maybe your English is bad? Or vision problems?
I repeat.
This is - “a technique for acquiring and understanding scientific and/or engineering knowledge”:

If you are an inquisitive and intelligent person, then just be patient, get information, compare the facts, analyze where you need it or have doubts - do the math yourself.

But this is “a psychological phenomena”

The Overton Window will open and you will understand the essence.
It was the same with me

Read it again. Very often it helps.

Moon landing conspiracists, perpetual motion, free energy, and HHO experimenters,

What are you doing here then?
Go there, they need clowns there.

[eutectique]

Maybe your English is bad? Or vision problems?
Read it again. Very often it helps.
What are you doing here then?
Go there, they need clowns there.

Relax. We are tired of your rant.

[Hydro]

So are you reading everything?
I am very happy !
Interesting ?
And I thought you had already left to post photos of cats.

But since you’re reading, tell me, what are your objections to the essence ?

Do you know what the difference is between us?
You read my topic, but I don’t read yours. I don’t even know if you opened any topics here.

[xrunner]

Fine.
Let's do this.
I will now give you a dozen analogies between hydrodynamics and electrical engineering.
And then I will give you the terms of hydrodynamics and you yourself will have to find analogies for them.
When you'll say that you cannot do this, I will explain to you why.

So.
...

Alternating current - there are no analogies in hydrodynamics

...

AC current water analogy

[soldar]

AC current water analogy

And for AC a capacitor is an elastic membrane and an inductance is a length of tubing. Works well.

[eutectique]

And I thought you had already left to post photos of cats.
Do you know what the difference is between us?
You read my topic, but I don’t read yours. I don’t even know if you opened any topics here.

T.M.I. episode of South Park springs to mind. Have you seen it? We have.

[Hydro]

Fine.
Let's do this.
I will now give you a dozen analogies between hydrodynamics and electrical engineering.
And then I will give you the terms of hydrodynamics and you yourself will have to find analogies for them.
When you'll say that you cannot do this, I will explain to you why.

So.
...

Alternating current - there are no analogies in hydrodynamics

...

AC current water analogy

Well.
Impractical, but yes, why not.
It remains to find an analogue of reactive power.

[Hydro]

Moon landing conspiracists, perpetual motion, free energy, and HHO experimenters,

To consolidate the material covered, I will again put here the conclusions of a professor at the University of Michigan.
So that someone with a sick imagination does not have seditious thoughts that these are Moon landing conspiracists, perpetual motion or free energy.

I myself understand not everything in this math, but I can’t object to anything, because I’m trying not to look like an amateur.




 

[Hydro]

Feel free to continue your pointless spam posting of this technology, but no-one on this forum will give you any money.

So, what did you want to say by talking about money?
What can I earn from this?
How ? Tell me please.

[ebastler]

Feel free to continue your pointless spam posting of this technology, but no-one on this forum will give you any money.

So, what did you want to say by talking about money?
What can I earn from this?
How ? Tell me please.

Could you please stop stirring the pot? If you feel like it, keep posting about the benefits of dam-less hydropower until the cows come home. But if others don't want to engage in pointless discussions with you anymore, please leave them alone, rather than trying to stoke up controversy.

If there is not enough quarreling in your life, why don't you go out for a walk and kick some people in the shin? 

[PlainName]

I myself understand not everything in this math, but I can’t object to anything, because I’m trying not to look like an amateur.

If you don't understand it, how do you know what it's saying? It could be complete bollocks so far as you know, but you're treating it as if it were gospel.

And.. if you you're trying not to look like an amateur then you're trying to appear as an expert or professional. Yet you say you don't understand the stuff which does actually imply you are indeed an amateur (of what you haven't specified).

I will again put here the conclusions of a professor at the University of Michigan

Why? I mean, all you're doing is spacing out actual content with repeated stuff that the reader is just going to skip. You've already posted it all, and either the reader bought it then or they didn't, but shoving it in their face again and again isn't going to make any difference.

And, again, you post it as if it's a holy scripture, yet you don't understand what it's saying. Isn't that what religion looks like?

[Hydro]

Feel free to continue your pointless spam posting of this technology, but no-one on this forum will give you any money.

So, what did you want to say by talking about money?
What can I earn from this?
How? Tell me please.

Could you please stop stirring the pot?

Why shouldn't I do this?
Is this forbidden by anyone?
This is what the forum was created for. Constantly “stirring” something, initiating questions, getting answers, more questions... etc

The dude blurted out something off-topic. I didn't understand what it was about.
I asked him - what did he mean?
He is silent. I thought that he left, but he is here, I see him.
I thought that he had forgotten about my question, so I reminded him of it.
If he doesn't answer, he probably doesn't know the answer. Or he knows, but is silent.
You have entered into the dialogue, and I assume that you know. But you don't answer it either.
Okay. Even better.
I will understand this in such a way that I myself will have to look for the answer.
And further on this issue there is no longer any need to “stirring the pot”.

If you feel like it, keep posting about the benefits of dam-less hydropower until the cows come home. But if others don't want to engage in pointless discussions with you anymore, please leave them alone, rather than trying to stoke up controversy.

I repeat for the hundredth time - I don’t drag here anyone with a lasso and I don’t pull anyone’s tongue.
Whoever wants to speaks out.
But after that, be kind enough to answer for the words spoken.

If there is not enough quarreling in your life, why don't you go out for a walk and kick some people in the shin?

If there is not enough quarreling in my life, I don't think it's a problem.
But it would never even have occurred to me that this “problem” could be solved in this way.
Is that the only difference between us?

[ebastler]

Don't play dumb, dear. To go for a walk to kick people in the shin was not a literal suggestion but an allegory for the behaviour you show here all the time. You know that. And I know that, which is why I will continue my walk on some other path.

[Hydro]

I myself understand not everything in this math, but I can’t object to anything, because I’m trying not to look like an amateur.

If you don't understand it, how do you know what it's saying? It could be complete bollocks so far as you know, but you're treating it as if it were gospel.

You also don't read carefully.
I didn’t say that I don’t understand, I said that understand not everything and I wanted to draw the attention of people who understand (if they are watching this).
For example, I don’t quite understand what “non-hydrodynamic energy” means in the text.
If anyone sees an error in these equations, please tell me about it. But no one talks about mistakes. It looks like they don't exist. So we'll accept it for now.

And.. if you you're trying not to look like an amateur then you're trying to appear as an expert or professional. Yet you say you don't understand the stuff which does actually imply you are indeed an amateur (of what you haven't specified).

Yes, in this topic I am trying to look not like an amateur, but an expert. And this has already been confirmed by the development of this topic, because, as you can see, I know more than all the visitors to this topic.
But even an expert doesn’t know everything.
If you watch the film "Oppenheimer", you will see that even he did not know the answers to all the questions and was not embarrassed to tell his colleagues or consult with anyone.

I will again put here the conclusions of a professor at the University of Michigan

Why? I mean, all you're doing is spacing out actual content with repeated stuff that the reader is just going to skip. You've already posted it all, and either the reader bought it then or they didn't, but shoving it in their face again and again isn't going to make any difference.

And, again, you post it as if it's a holy scripture, yet you don't understand what it's saying. Isn't that what religion looks like?

You misunderstand the essence of the cognitive process. One of its aspects is the repetition of material. This is how physics and mathematics and literature and other sciences are studied.
Have you ever had to re-read incomprehensible passages in articles or textbooks to understand the essence more deeply?
Repetition matter. This is how the process of cognition occurs.

If you understand everything at once, then you are the best student in the class.
But don't bother others. Probably, not everyone learns the material covered so quickly and not everyone understands the lesson so quickly.
For example, this professor’s calculation was posted a long time ago, but still someone had the idiotic idea that it was “moon landing conspiracists or free energy”
This is why repetition of material is necessary for them.
I'm glad that you are not one of them.
You can just skip this part of the lesson and go to a cafe with a girl-friend.

[Hydro]

I don't think I want to jump through every hoop you hold up, and I certainly don't want to download some surprise video. Unsubscribing from this thread now.

And I know that, which is why I will continue my walk on some other path.

Good luck ! See you soon !

The place will not remain empty. It will only be freed from the opinions of amateurs and clowns, and this is even for the better.
But it will never be empty.
It is viewed by a lot of people who are not amateurs and clowns, but who have nothing to say or object to the topic. They only receive information and understand it.

[Halcyon]

EDIT: Sorry guys. Thread was locked for a short time due to a duplicate post across another thread. Spoken with the poster, and this one has been unlocked again.

[Hydro]

Thank you !

[Hydro]

Feel free to continue your pointless spam posting of this technology, but no-one on this forum will give you any money.

I don’t know why you suddenly decided to talk about some kind of money, although there was not even a hint of this in my messages.
But you intrigue me. I'll think about it.

It seems I understand what you meant when talking about money.
This one ?

"The best place on the web to discuss crowd funded hardware projects!
Promotions allowed, just be ready for serious expert feedback."

But here they don’t give out money, they only “pump up” the project for potential financial attractiveness.
And they claim “serious expert feedback,” which I have not yet observed in my topic.

Well.
I'll try.

[Hydro]

While unnecessary messages were being deleted, this one was also deleted. I restore it from the cache.

And what ! I’ll go there, maybe they’ll say something useful. It says there - “be ready for serious expert feedback”

[langwadt]

While unnecessary messages were being deleted, this one was also deleted. I restore it from the cache.

And what ! I’ll go there, maybe they’ll say something useful. It says there - “be ready for serious expert feedback”

and when the expert feedback isn't that your magic "free-flow turbine" is the best thing since sliced bread and going to save the world, what do you do?

[Hydro]

and when the expert feedback isn't that your magic "free-flow turbine" is the best thing since sliced bread and going to save the world, what do you do?

Well, first of all, this is not my “magic free-flow turbine”. It was made, as far as I can understand, in Romania and Serbia.
And secondly, the answer to your question has several options.

1. "the expert feedback isn't"
    - this means that there are no experts here.

2. "the expert feedback isn't that your not mine magic "free-flow turbine" is the best thing"
    - in this case I will contact the developers and write to them that this is bullshit

3. "the expert feedback is that your not mine magic "free-flow turbine" is the best thing"
    - then, what do you do?


The first two options are not for you, but please answer the last one if you don’t mind.

 

[Hydro]

and when the expert feedback isn't that your magic "free-flow turbine" is the best thing since sliced bread and going to save the world, what do you do?

Well, first of all, this is not my “magic free-flow turbine”. It was made, as far as I can understand, in Romania and Serbia.
And secondly, the answer to your question has several options.

1. "the expert feedback isn't"
    - this means that there are no experts here.

2. "the expert feedback isn't that your not mine magic "free-flow turbine" is the best thing"
    - in this case I will contact the developers and write to them that this is bullshit

3. "the expert feedback is that the magic "free-flow turbine" is the best thing"
    - then, what do you do?


The first two options are not for you, but please answer the last one if you don’t mind.

 

Well, will you speak out there as an expert?

Or are you afraid that point 3 will  work out? 

[schmitt trigger]

Hydro; I have read your post twice and it is not clear exactly what you require. I believe you really, really need right now is to eat some chocolate chip cookies, and I am reproducing a recipe below:

https://joyfoodsunshine.com/the-most-amazing-chocolate-chip-cookies/

[voltsandjolts]

"These are everything a chocolate chip cookie should be. Crispy and chewy. "

Yup, that seals the deal, I need to try those. Thanks for the link.

[tggzzz]

Hydro; I have read your post twice and it is not clear exactly what you require. I believe you really, really need right now is to eat some chocolate chip cookies, and I am reproducing a recipe below:

https://joyfoodsunshine.com/the-most-amazing-chocolate-chip-cookies/

Have you tried that recipe yourself and demontrated that it works as advertised?

Or is it just something you have seen on a random website and are mentioning it because you think it will (when experts understand it) revolutionise the art of cooking? 

[PlainName]

I've tasked my cookie expert with validating the process. With a  bit of luck it'll take her several tries.

[Hydro]

Hydro; I have read your post twice and it is not clear exactly what you require. I believe you really, really need right now is to eat some chocolate chip cookies, and I am reproducing a recipe below:

https://joyfoodsunshine.com/the-most-amazing-chocolate-chip-cookies/

Which post did you read twice?

This one ?

1. "there isn't the expert feedback "
    - this means that there are no experts here.

2. "the expert feedback isn't that the magic "free-flow turbine" is the best thing"
    - in this case I will contact the developers and write to them that this is bullshit

3. "the expert feedback is that the magic "free-flow turbine" is the best thing"
    - then, what do you do?

Everything is written very clearly here.
I ask langwadt to participate in peer review of a technology if he considers himself an expert and takes responsibility to state anything about possible peer review.
Or is he afraid to be an expert?

schmitt trigger, re-read this post for the third and fourth time.
If even after this it does not become clear to you, then I cannot help you. Only cookies can help you.

[Andy Chee]

I ask langwadt to participate in peer review of a technology if he considers himself an expert and takes responsibility to state anything about possible peer review.
Or is he afraid to be an expert?

Your peer review request is not genuine.  Calling someone afraid is not peer review, that's bullying.

Also peer review requires publishing article author names.  For some reason, you keep editing your articles and replacing the author names with ***@***.com

[Hydro]

I ask langwadt to participate in peer review of a technology if he considers himself an expert and takes responsibility to state anything about possible peer review.
Or is he afraid to be an expert?

Your peer review request is not genuine.  Calling someone afraid is not peer review, that's bullying.

Also peer review requires publishing article author names.  For some reason, you keep editing your articles and replacing the author names with ***@***.com

No, what is called bullying is not my assumption, that my opponent afraid, but his comparison of “magic free-flow turbine” with sliced bread. And his desire to find out what I will do if the experts decide so.

I answered his question in detail - I gave him three possible options. But he doesn’t answer.

Yes, I expressed myself somewhat incorrectly about “peer review”. This is usually used for scientific articles.
But I just want to find out an expert assessment of the technology and the turbine that uses this technology.

But who wants to give a peer review of the article, then please, here is an article.

I do not have the right to publish their names and addresses here in order to ensure the most unbiased approach and not to make unnecessary advertising for the authors on the forum. This is the only reason not to advertise their names on this site.

And moreover, I can still conclude that this topic is very interesting to many, despite their statements that they left, unsubscribed and that they are not interested.

[Someone]

Purpose of a journal article is to clearly communicate the problem and solution. Since neither are presented clearly in that article it fails before needing to consider the illogical conclusions and claims.

Equally Hydro, if this is so interesting and groundbreaking why can its important points not be clearly communicated to others?

[Hydro]

Purpose of a journal article is to clearly communicate the problem and solution. Since neither are presented clearly in that article it fails before needing to consider the illogical conclusions and claims.

Equally Hydro, if this is so interesting and groundbreaking why can its important points not be clearly communicated to others?

Maybe I'm wrong, then correct me, pls

It seems to me that the article quite clearly sets out the problem - to improve the free flow of hydroelectric power stations.
Solution - formulas were derived and the operating principle of such a hydraulic turbine was invented.

Explanations are given for its scale modeling taking into account the coefficients of hydrodynamic similarity - the Reynolds number and the Froude number.

I’m unlikely to be able to better convey the essence of the solution to the problem than was done in the article, which is why I posted all the articles and comments that there are on this matter.

If you see some illogical conclusions and claims, then I can try to answer them as I understand it.

Please....

[Andy Chee]

I do not have the right to publish their names and addresses here in order to ensure the most unbiased approach and not to make unnecessary advertising for the authors on the forum. This is the only reason not to advertise their names on this site.

You have the right to publish the DOI of the article, for example:

https://doi.org/10.3390/en11020267
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.181
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1414137
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.023
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2019.100605
https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814015595339

DOI is the standard method of sharing articles, not edited screenshot images you made in photoshop or microsoft paint.

Please post the original DOI to your articles.

[PlainName]

Please post the original DOI to your articles

And perhaps chocolate cake recipes to go with the cookies.

Or maybe that's too much chocolate. I've heard that a lemon flan can be improved with chocolate, though.

[Hydro]

I say it again

1. this are not my articles

2. we are not in a scientific journal here, but in a public forum.

3. even if it were not published in some journal, no one forbids discussing it here.

4. we are not discussing articles here, but technologies.

5. anyone who wants to write a peer review should contact the author or the  journal.

6. if I hid the name of the author of the article, it was only in order not to get involved with the author, but with the turbine, which is presented at the beginning of the topic

[Hydro]

Please post the original DOI to your articles

And perhaps chocolate cake recipes to go with the cookies.

Or maybe that's too much chocolate. I've heard that a lemon flan can be improved with chocolate, though.

Well, I thought the clowns were gone here.
But no, they're still alive 

[Andy Chee]

5. anyone who wants to write a peer review should contact the author or the  journal.

I want to contact the author.  Please tell me the author's name or journal.  Or just provide the DOI, which will contain all the required contact information.

[PlainName]

Please post the original DOI to your articles

And perhaps chocolate cake recipes to go with the cookies.

Or maybe that's too much chocolate. I've heard that a lemon flan can be improved with chocolate, though.

Well, I thought the clowns were gone here.
But no, they're still alive 

"Man shall not live on fancy ideas alone". Although I think originally it was about bread, but times and technology move on.

[Hydro]

5. anyone who wants to write a peer review should contact the author or the  journal.

I want to contact the author.  Please tell me the author's name or journal.  Or just provide the DOI, which will contain all the required contact information.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/unusual-design-of-a-free-flow-hydropower-station/msg5266509/#msg5266509

[Hydro]

In my opinion this is another article of the same autor.
It seems to me that there is a different address there.

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/research-into-the-hydrodynamic-effect-of-bosting-power-and-its-full-scale-modelling


And this one ?

https://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Hydropower-hydrodynamic-application-hydro-turbines/dp/3847371096

[tggzzz]

5. anyone who wants to write a peer review should contact the author or the  journal.

I want to contact the author.  Please tell me the author's name or journal.  Or just provide the DOI, which will contain all the required contact information.

Regrettably that is becoming the starting point rather than an intermediate conclusion, e.g.
https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common

I wonder if the OP is aware of that phenomenon and/or choosing to exploit it?

Well, I thought the clowns were gone here.
But no, they're still alive 

Yes they are still here, as all but one poster realises.

Ludicrous posts engender ludicrous responses.

[eutectique]

If you see some illogical conclusions and claims, then I can try to answer them as I understand it.

The original video has the description: "Безплотинная Мини-ГЭС Линева производит 11 кВт при скорости течения реки 1 м/с" or, in plain English, "damless mini-power station produces 11 kW at flow speed of 1 m/s".

This claim is exaggerated and illogical. I'd love to see your answer.

[Andy Chee]

In my opinion this is another article of the same autor.
It seems to me that there is a different address there.

Please provide the author or journal or DOI or contact details for the following article:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/unusual-design-of-a-free-flow-hydropower-station/msg5299339/#msg5299339

[Hydro]

In my opinion this is another article of the same autor.
It seems to me that there is a different address there.

Please provide the author or journal or DOI or contact details for the following article:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/unusual-design-of-a-free-flow-hydropower-station/msg5299339/#msg5299339

As far as I know, this calculation is posted on arXiv. It doesn't have any DOI.

I repeat - we are not in a scientific journal.
If only these formulas were written on a napkin in a restaurant. Can you refute them?

[Hydro]

If you see some illogical conclusions and claims, then I can try to answer them as I understand it.

The original video has the description: "Безплотинная Мини-ГЭС Линева производит 11 кВт при скорости течения реки 1 м/с" or, in plain English, "damless mini-power station produces 11 kW at flow speed of 1 m/s".

This claim is exaggerated and illogical. I'd love to see your answer.

In my opinion this is bullshit.
Where is this written?

He has other numbers written in his article.

[eutectique]

The original video has the description: "Безплотинная Мини-ГЭС Линева производит 11 кВт при скорости течения реки 1 м/с" or, in plain English, "damless mini-power station produces 11 kW at flow speed of 1 m/s".

In my opinion this is bullshit.
Where is this written?

It is written in the description of the original video on youtube.

[Andy Chee]

In my opinion this is another article of the same autor.
It seems to me that there is a different address there.

Please provide the author or journal or DOI or contact details for the following article:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/unusual-design-of-a-free-flow-hydropower-station/msg5299339/#msg5299339

As far as I know, this calculation is posted on arXiv. It doesn't have any DOI.

I repeat - we are not in a scientific journal.
If only these formulas were written on a napkin in a restaurant. Can you refute them?

I think you want to steal his idea, which is why you are refusing to provide contact details.  Or you are a lazy researcher.  Or both.

These reasons are why no-one wants to discuss anything with you.

[Hydro]

As far as I know, this calculation is posted on arXiv. It doesn't have any DOI.

I repeat - we are not in a scientific journal.
If only these formulas were written on a napkin in a restaurant. Can you refute them?

I think you want to steal his idea, which is why you are refusing to provide contact details. Or you are a lazy researcher. Or both.

These reasons are why no-one wants to discuss anything with you.

1. How can I steal an idea if it was published in a journal many years ago?

2. The design may be different, but on the same principle. Just as the designs of cars, airplanes, helicopters, ships, etc. can be different. However, the principle was invented long time ago by Carnot, Otto, Diesel, the Wright brothers and others. No one can steal the very idea from them.

3. Contact details of the authors are publicly available. I gave them to you. Although you yourself found them a long time ago (even considering the fact that they are in Serbian). Although you stated that you are not interested his research.

4. I don’t see that no one is discussing anything with me.
Vice versa! They are discussing it, so much smoke is coming out!
It’s just that no one can object to anything on the merits.

[Hydro]

5. anyone who wants to write a peer review should contact the author or the  journal.

I want to contact the author.  Please tell me the author's name or journal.  Or just provide the DOI, which will contain all the required contact information.

Can you tell us about the results of your conversations with the authors?

[eutectique]

He has other numbers written in his article.

169 W of power at 1 rpm is 1600 Nm of torque. How can it be stopped with a bare hand (in the video)?

[Hydro]

He has other numbers written in his article.

169 W of power at 1 rpm is 1600 Nm of torque. How can it be stopped with a bare hand (in the video)?

1. where did you see 1 rpm?

2. how did you calculate 1600 Nm without taking into account the pulley diameter?

3. in this video the operating mode is by no means optimal. The table shows the data in optimal mode.

4. watch this video.
it looks like no one risks sticking their fingers into the pulleys

[eutectique]

2. how did you calculate 1600 Nm without taking into account the pulley diameter?

Do I need to know the pulley diameter to calculate torque from power? Please explain.

[Hydro]

2. how did you calculate 1600 Nm without taking into account the pulley diameter?

Do I need to know the pulley diameter to calculate torque from power? Please explain.

In the same place where you saw 1 rpm.
So where did you see it?

How can you calculate the force applied to a pulley without taking into account its diameter?

[eutectique]

How can you calculate the force applied to a pulley without taking into account its diameter?

I am not calculating force. I am calculating torque.

Now, tell me why do I need to know the diameter to calculate torque from power?

[Hydro]

I'll tell you right after you tell me where you got 1 rpm

[PlainName]

I'll tell you right after you tell me where you got 1 rpm

aka "I don't know"

Otherwise, why is it a secret? Either you know and can tell eutectique or you don't and are deflecting.

[Hydro]

Why don’t I know? I know.
I took this from the same place where he took 1rpm.

so as soon as he answers, you will know my answer

[PlainName]

So if he doesn't answer, why wouldn't you want to explain? Either you can and should be happy to show your expertise, or you can't and just need an excuse to hide that.

[Hydro]

Yes, why don't I answer if he doesn't answer.
My answer is that -  I picked it out of thin air.
I decided to pump him up - but does he understand what he blurted out?

[Hydro]

I think you want to steal his idea, which is why you are refusing to provide contact details.  Or you are a lazy researcher.  Or both.

Has it finally dawned on you that this idea is worth stealing?

But how can you steal something that is already in plain sight?

[pcprogrammer]

Finally the real clown is out of the bag. 

[pcprogrammer]

@Hydro, do you even understand how much energy is 1J/s which is 1W?

According to the table you posted, such a hydropower station of 1m depth produces 3430 Joule per second. This is 3430W and boils down to 0,000952778KWh. Good luck in powering your house with it.

Edit: I overlooked the fact that it is continuous. The small number is just the amount of energy for a single second.

[eutectique]

To reiterate:

169 W of power at 1 rpm is 1600 Nm of torque.

2. how did you calculate 1600 Nm without taking into account the pulley diameter?

The holes in your knowledge of mechanics are profound.

You don't even know the basics.

For your education, $$\tau = \frac{P}{\omega}$$
where $\tau$ is torque, $P$ is instantaneous power, and $\omega$ is angular velocity.

There is no "pulley diameter", or "lever" in the formula.

Distance from the centre of rotation does not matter.

[voltsandjolts]

@Hydro, do you even understand how much energy is 1J/s which is 1W?

According to the table you posted, such a hydropower station of 1m depth produces 3430 Joule per second. This is 3430W and boils down to 0,000952778KWh. Good luck in powering your house with it.

3430 Joules per second = 3430W = 3.430kW
If this continues for one hour, you have generated 3.430kWh

[pcprogrammer]

@Hydro, do you even understand how much energy is 1J/s which is 1W?

According to the table you posted, such a hydropower station of 1m depth produces 3430 Joule per second. This is 3430W and boils down to 0,000952778KWh. Good luck in powering your house with it.

3430 Joules per second = 3430W = 3.430kW
If this continues for one hour, you have generated 3.430kWh

True, and if you only use it for lights and a fridge or so it will suffice. But if you want to run your washing machine simultaneous with your vacuum cleaner, fridge, toaster, microwave, heat pump, etc. it ain't gonna cut it. Our house has a 9KW connection, so I would need three of these "power plants" and a big river nearby. Not possible in the small stream that runs in the fields next to our plot.

As a proper solution for switching to "renewable energy" it is useless due to it being small scale, and impractical for large deployment. Large scale geo thermal might do the trick, but as with everything else, what are the long term consequences.

And on an other note, what would the life expectancy be of such a mechanical structure in a stream powerful enough to drive it. With dirt and it causing erosion I don't expect to long.

[voltsandjolts]

As a proper solution for switching to "renewable energy" it is useless due to it being small scale

I disagree with your assertion that small scale is useless. I would consider a near continuous supply of 3kW from a clean energy source on my own property to be a huge win. It would mean low cost, low carbon hot water supply and lighting. Add battery storage to enable some higher intermittent loads. The incoming mains supply would then be used to power the highest (but short term) loads.

[magic]

Yes, I don't understand what exactly is so bad about having lighting, refrigeration, computers and a few other things running 24/7 for free

[IanB]

Yes, I don't understand what exactly is so bad about having lighting, refrigeration, computers and a few other things running 24/7 for free

It's irrelevant, because you are not going to get any of that from whatever nonsense is being presented in this thread 

[PlainName]

Yes, I don't understand what exactly is so bad about having lighting, refrigeration, computers and a few other things running 24/7 for free

It's irrelevant, because you are not going to get any of that from whatever nonsense is being presented in this thread 

No, but if we wanted to start a circus we now know where to find a clown 

[pcprogrammer]

Yes, I don't understand what exactly is so bad about having lighting, refrigeration, computers and a few other things running 24/7 for free

And how is it for free if you have to, at first buy the contraption and then replace the blades every so often, and what other maintenance is needed. Nothing is for free these days.

Just as the lures for switching over to for instance a heat pump. It pays it self back in so many years they state. No it does not. After so many years you most likely have spent just as much money as you would have when you kept running your gas system. And after that so called payback period the system might need replacement because it wore out.

As it happens we are looking into another solution for heating our house, because the hassle with fire wood is becoming to much for me. For the wife it is also a bother and she finds the smell very irritating, so a solution with fuel oil or pellets is not an option. Fuel oil is also phased out, but both would be cheaper to install. Running cost would be on par with the fire wood we use now or in case of the pellets somewhat higher.

An air to water heat pomp is very uneconomical in this region due to the fact that it needs resistive heating to cope with low outside temperatures. Geo thermal is much better in performance but costs an arm and a leg to install.

We are waiting for the quotations from some companies to see the differences. We did get some insight in running cost for both types. Air to water would cost us about 2200 euro per year in electricity were as ground to water would do 970 euro per year.

Any way you turn it the comfort is going to cost us.

[magic]

I'm not insisting that anything presented in this thread is practical but I objected to the notion that continuous 3kW isn't worth bothering with. Yes, it won't power peak loads and you will need other sources or very restrictive scheduling, but I wouldn't be surprised if actually most consumption at most households is by loads of less than 3kW over long time.

[RJSV]

   Not to rain on your picnic, there,....but;
   I'm wondering about regulatory stuff, boring and often unfair or unclear rules and all.

   Going into middle of stream might cause stresses on animal life nearby, like perhaps river otters, that sort of thing (that people often express that they care about.)
Pesky questions like this often get waved off.  But you could at least state that there aren't any regulatory concerns, for river beds and immediate surrounding property (even private lands).
   So, what is the waterway 'build-out' option, maybe for private lands and creeks ?   What about roads and ramps, or other access
points ?  I mean, is it simply "that's private land...don't worry." ?
   Oh yeah, (now that I got started), what about any occupational safety requirements ?  Any folks to be hired, to maintain the plant ?
Even drowning risks are taken into account when employees have to go wading, in a dynamic and possibly changing setting (seasonal rain overflows).

   I don't think a rational business and insurance person would feel 'safe and cozy' (with that 'energy' plant), without some defensive approach.

[pcprogrammer]

Yes, very good points.

And what about if a tree branch gets into the water and blocks the device. By by power.

Or like the, by RJSV mentioned, seasonal effect of a sudden rain flood taking your "power plant" away because the shoring's were not good enough.

[ebastler]

A couple of non-technical facts. Follow the money...

• German Treshchalov, the author whose papers Hydro has repeatedly shared, is not an academic researcher. He has led is own company, ERGroup or ERG, for the past 16 years: https://www.linkedin.com/in/germantreshchalov/?originalSubdomain=uz
  

• The Youtube channel Hydro has linked to twice in this thread has only those two videos, both put up over the past 8 days. And as it happens, that channel is also named ERG: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOTyVjisYjonxLLgKNtsUjw
  

• Otherwise, ERGroup does not have a lot to show for a company that has been in business for so long. But they will make it big "real soon now"^TM, with an innovative energy technology to be launched later this year: https://www.ergroup.asia/
  

• We still don't know who that mysterious "professor from Michigan" is, whose analysis Hydro has shared three times (and who just happens to publish in Serbian according to Hydro, so we only get censored English excerpts from his work).
  

And we still don't know how "Hydro" is related to this merry bunch, and what his interests are in all of this. Honi soit qui mal y pense...

[Andy Chee]

And we still don't know how "Hydro" is related to this merry bunch, and what his interests are in all of this. Honi soit qui mal y pense...

One thing that should be evident, Mr. Hydro lacks a certain amount of basic math, engineering, and science background.  I'm estimating Grade 10 level math & science.

[Hydro]

And we still don't know how "Hydro" is related to this merry bunch, and what his interests are in all of this. Honi soit qui mal y pense...

One thing that should be evident, Mr. Hydro lacks a certain amount of basic math, engineering, and science background.  I'm estimating Grade 10 level math & science.

Relax, guy !

I'm a businessman. I have no academic background. Only technical courses.
When I need it, I hire academics, engineers, programmers.

But it seems that you all don’t even have a technical education, so I definitely won’t hire you.

First does not understand that in order to stop a pulley by hand, you need to know not only the torque, but also the diameter of the pulley.

Another one managed to multiply 3 kW per millisecond and is proud of it.
Hey dude ! Try multiplying it by a nanosecond! You will get 0.000..... 0000952778KWh.
Your wife will be proud of you!

The third already from the first page of the topic threatens to find errors in the formulas.
It would seem that if you see them there, show them to everyone and prove to everyone that this is all bullshit.
But he doesn't do it!
Because there are no errors and therefore he cannot find them!

[Hydro]

Yes, I don't understand what exactly is so bad about having lighting, refrigeration, computers and a few other things running 24/7 for free

Absolutely right!
These technologies are not intended so much for Europeans, Canadians or Australians (although for them too).
But to a large extent for farmers in Pakistan, India, China, Africa, and South America.

As we say:
ਚੰਗੇ ਇਰਾਦੇ ਅੱਧੀ ਲੜਾਈ ਹਨ

[Hydro]

@Hydro, do you even understand how much energy is 1J/s which is 1W?

According to the table you posted, such a hydropower station of 1m depth produces 3430 Joule per second. This is 3430W and boils down to 0,000952778KWh. Good luck in powering your house with it.

     

Another factor.
3 kW at with a depth of 1 m (turbine height) is being actively discussed and no longer seems to raise doubts.

A conventional free-flow turbine (Darier turbine or Savonius rotor) under such conditions according to the Betz limit can theoretically produce only 0.5 kW * 0.59 = 0.295 kW

However, as can be seen from the table, increasing the vertical size of the turbine (depth) increases the turbine power in a cubic dependence.

Thus, by increasing the vertical size to 1.5 m, we will increase the turbine power by 1.5^3 = 3.375
That is, up to 11 kW
And daily energy production is 275 kWh!

Is this not enough for anyone else’s home?

[IanB]

Another factor.
3 kW at with a depth of 1 m (turbine height) is being actively discussed and no longer seems to raise doubts.

A conventional free-flow turbine (Darier turbine or Savonius rotor) under such conditions according to the Betz limit can theoretically produce only 0.5 kW * 0.59 = 0.295 kW

However, as can be seen from the table, increasing the vertical size of the turbine (depth) increases the turbine power in a cubic dependence.

Thus, by increasing the vertical size to 1.5 m, we will increase the turbine power by 1.5^3 = 3.375
That is, up to 11 kW
And daily energy production is 275 kWh!

Is this not enough for anyone else’s home?

There is no such power because all the numbers quoted are fiction and no such device can operate in the manner described.

[Hydro]

[pcprogrammer]

Another one managed to multiply 3 kW per millisecond and is proud of it.
Hey dude ! Try multiplying it by a nanosecond! You will get 0.000..... 0000952778KWh.
Your wife will be proud of you!

Get your own facts straight. The number I stated is per second. Multiply it by 3600 and you get the alleged 3.4KWh. There is nothing wrong with the math I used there. Converting energy expressed in Joules to KWh means simply divide by 3600000. Look it up on the internet.

And I owned up to the fact that I overlooked the continuous nature of the alleged 3430J/s.

I say alleged because what is on paper is yet to be proven to be correct in real live, and the first video does not show it, no matter the size of that pulley.

[Hydro]

• We still don't know who that mysterious "professor from Michigan" is, whose analysis Hydro has shared three times (and who just happens to publish in Serbian according to Hydro, so we only get censored English excerpts from his work).
  

Shared even three times ?? 
Did you count?
Commendable!

What attention the topic has attracted!
And you say it's not interesting... 

For me it is defined as Serbian.
And you ?

[ebastler]

I get it that you have no scientific background, man. But could you please learn to adhere to just the minimum of a proper scientific discourse, by disclosing your full sources? No screenshots of partial documents, no blanked-out names, but actual links to the source? It is not difficult.

On a more general note, I don't get your approach to this thread. You seem to look for validation of the technology. (In an electronics forum, which is not the best place to start with, by the way.) But if technical validation is what you want -- why don't you give us the full information? And why do you push back so heavily if someone criticizes the technology? Isn't criticism exactly what you came for?

[magic]

You seem to look for validation.
Isn't criticism exactly what you came for?

Another clown

[Hydro]

You seem to look for validation.
Isn't criticism exactly what you came for?

Criticize.
You have everything for this.

You had 9 pages of discussion for this.

And if you want to criticize the authors.
Write to the authors or to the journal.
All the details are there.

Go ahead !

[ebastler]

I get it that you have no scientific background, man. But could you please learn to adhere to just the minimum of a proper scientific discourse, by disclosing your full sources? No screenshots of partial documents, no blanked-out names, but actual links to the source? It is not difficult.

So what about that Serbian paper from Michigan? Source?

[Hydro]

I gave the sources.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/unusual-design-of-a-free-flow-hydropower-station/msg5317741/#msg5317741

Are you blind?
Get over it for now.
When you do, I'll give you more.

[ebastler]

I gave the sources.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/unusual-design-of-a-free-flow-hydropower-station/msg5317741/#msg5317741

Are you blind?
Get over it for now.
When you do, I'll give you more.

Those links are obviously not the sources for the scan you showed here and multiple times as a Google translation. The one from the "professor from Michigan", you know?

I was beginning to consider that your interest might be sincere, but you have conviced my otherwise again. You are either trying to troll us or to con someone.

Let's get back to chocolate chip cookies, that was by far the most rewarding discussion in this thread yet.

[eutectique]

What attention the topic has attracted!

Shouting expletives in a crowded place with pants down would attract the same sort of attention and would be equally embarrassing.

For me it is defined as Serbian.

Yet another fail. This is Russian.

[PlainName]

Let's get back to chocolate chip cookies

Gets my vote 

As it happens, I am expecting to receive a batch of the previously posted recipe in the next day or two.

[Hydro]

What attention the topic has attracted!

Shouting expletives in a crowded place with pants down would attract the same sort of attention and would be equally embarrassing.

This is clearly not our case.
For example, when I see something like this, I just avoid it. And if it’s shown on TV, then I switch the program.
All intelligent and smart people do this.

I'm sure everyone here is like that.
Or not ?

[Hydro]

I'm sorry.
Urgent business matters have arisen. I'm very busy right now.

I found out everything I wanted in this topic.

You can close it or you can continue to discuss anything here.
At least cookies.

[tggzzz]

I'm sorry.
Urgent business matters have arisen. I'm very busy right now.

I found out everything I wanted in this topic.

You can close it or you can continue to discuss anything here.
At least cookies.

Yeah. Right.

[pcprogrammer]

.....
All intelligent and smart people do this.

I'm sure everyone here is like that.

First you call us amateurs and clowns and now you are trying to stick a feather up our ass with commenting that you are sure everybody on here is smart and intelligent. 

What is it, make up your mind.

[tggzzz]

.....
All intelligent and smart people do this.

I'm sure everyone here is like that.

First you call us amateurs and clowns and now you are trying to stick a feather up our ass with commenting that you are sure everybody on here is smart and intelligent. 

What is it, make up your mind.

He has: he appears not to be a member anymore.

Good: improves this forum.
Bad: source of amusement has disappeared.

EDIT: appears to be banned.
I've only recently started "ignoring that user" (due to excessive irritation at a perceived drift in the forum), and it appears that has two (more) effects:

• their status is not shown in their posts, which isn't unreasonable
• searching the member list does not reveal them. That is surprising, partly because makes it less easy to unignore someone

[soldar]

This thread and its sister were a mess from the get-go and have been all over the place and back which it is a pity because there are a few kernels of interesting topics in there.

[PlainName]

a few kernels of interesting topics in there

Indeed! The chocolate cookies hold great promise 

[PlainName]

But, seriously, I always thought anything moving along a belt would suck the living daylights out of a power source, and that seems not to have been taken into account.