kickstarter..

[featured_spectre]

I am in the process of a kickstarter project. If it gains ground I would be ecstatic! Working on the wording, and what you receive at various levels of donations

[FishCustard]

Oooh, what're you making?

[featured_spectre]

Turbines that can accept wind from any direction with a 15-1 revolution ratio. Small enough to be used on trains, houses, sheds, basically anywhere you have 1m H x 0.5m D x 0.5m W of free space.

 

Judging by my estimates 4 of these could sufficiently power a 2 bedroom house with a bit to spare. Depends entirely on the prototype and how efficient it is.

[Arthur]

Did anyone back Tim Schafer's Broken Age game on Kickstarter? If so, you're now only getting half the game since he hasn't got enough money to make the full game.

 

Somehow, Tim Schafer's Adventure Game Kickstarter Needs More Money « Kotaku

 

Double Fine's adventure game Kickstarter was one of 2012's great success stories, bringing in over $3 million in community funding. A year later, though, it turns out that wasn't enough money to get the game finished.

 

In a lengthy and honest message to backers sent earlier today, Double Fine boss Tim Schafer explains that, basically, he designed too much game. And that for the title - now known as Broken Age - to be finished, it's going to need more money.

 

It's worth noting that the project originally asked for a mere $400,000 in funding.

 

Going to a publisher is out of the question, and a second Kickstarter is also written off as a bad decision, so Schafer has decided to cut the game in half and sell it on Steam.

[LosOjos]

That's more than some of the big studios spend on a game! I missed the kickstarter campaign but I just cannot imagine anything but sheer stupidity causing a game to cost that much to make... Anyone have a better explanation?

[Greenbeast]

Turbines that can accept wind from any direction with a 15-1 revolution ratio. Small enough to be used on trains, houses, sheds, basically anywhere you have 1m H x 0.5m D x 0.5m W of free space.

 

Judging by my estimates 4 of these could sufficiently power a 2 bedroom house with a bit to spare. Depends entirely on the prototype and how efficient it is.

 

why trains?

[featured_spectre]

Trains generate a lot of wind energy, if you've ever stood next to a stansion (the pillars carrying the electrical conduit), when a train has whizzed past, it generates around 70mph of wind give or take. This over an 8 or 12 carriage train, is a large gust, and would generate a nice amount of electricity. Now, place 2 between each stansion and you have yourself a wind farm that expands the UK rail network, and can generate a lot of energy. This could help solve our pending energy crisis

[pcstru]

Trains generate a lot of wind energy, if you've ever stood next to a stansion (the pillars carrying the electrical conduit), when a train has whizzed past, it generates around 70mph of wind give or take. This over an 8 or 12 carriage train, is a large gust, and would generate a nice amount of electricity. Now, place 2 between each stansion and you have yourself a wind farm that expands the UK rail network, and can generate a lot of energy. This could help solve our pending energy crisis

 

I can't quite decide if you are serious or not. Just in case you are ... you will of course cause the trains to use more fuel.

[plexer]

I can't quite decide if you are serious or not. Just in case you are ... you will of course cause the trains to use more fuel.

 

Why will the train use more fuel? The turbine is mounted on the station the train going past will use no more fuel than if the turbine wasn't there?

 

Ben

[plexer]

Turbines that can accept wind from any direction with a 15-1 revolution ratio. Small enough to be used on trains, houses, sheds, basically anywhere you have 1m H x 0.5m D x 0.5m W of free space.

 

Judging by my estimates 4 of these could sufficiently power a 2 bedroom house with a bit to spare. Depends entirely on the prototype and how efficient it is.

 

So a vertical axis turbine then?

 

Ben

[pcstru]

Why will the train use more fuel? The turbine is mounted on the station the train going past will use no more fuel than if the turbine wasn't there?

 

The train uses fuel to push the air. As the train accelerates, the air beside it will speed up and travel with it. For a given speed there will be an equilibrium where the air is bleeding energy from the train (air friction). If you extract energy from that volume of air, the train will need to accelerate more air to replace it.

 

The sort version is you don't get something for nothing.

[Greenbeast]

 

The sort version is you don't get something for nothing.

 

I was hoping to all that is holy that he wasn't intending to put the turbines actually on trains

[featured_spectre]

God no, not on the trains, and the turbine itself would be an upright one, the way that the blades are designed, they can accept airflow from any direction (at least in small scale tests). As for using more trains, no, they won't use more fuel. The air friction happens from the air head on and the vehicle moves and the air around the side causes drag, it is not generated from the side as it is in motion. If this was the case, a car would use dramatically more fuel when going through tunnels, car parks, country roads where there are a buildup of trees etc and this isn't the case.

 

I have put 18 months (around work and family commitments) of research into this, and so far, everything in my computer model testing and small scale prototype (10cmx5cmx5cm - without the electrical charging capacity) says I am on track for this (pardon the pun), and I am currently building a full scale prototype to test first.

Edited July 4, 2013 by featured_spectre

[pcstru]

God no, not on the trains, and the turbine itself would be an upright one, the way that the blades are designed, they can accept airflow from any direction (at least in small scale tests). As for using more trains, no, they won't use more fuel. The air friction happens from the air head on and the vehicle moves and the air around the side causes drag, it is not generated from the side as it is in motion. If this was the case, a car would use dramatically more fuel when going through tunnels, car parks, country roads where there are a buildup of trees etc and this isn't the case.

 

I have put 18 months or so of research into this, and so far, everything in my computer model testing and small scale prototype (10cmx5cmx5cm - without the electrical charging capacity) says I am on track for this (pardon the pun), and I am currently building a full scale prototype to test first.

 

It is the case that a car will use more fuel as it transits into a tunnel, within the tunnel it will establish a new equilibrium. If you think your turbine doesn't cause the train to use more fuel then please explain exactly where the energy does come from?

[featured_spectre]

Along with the wind that is naturally occurring, the residual energy from air friction as it leaves the train in motion generates the energy.

[X-13]

I was hoping to all that is holy that he wasn't intending to put the turbines actually on trains

 

Train > Helicopter rolling transformation.

 

MAKE. IT. HAPPEN.

[north-ict]

Hopefully sometime this month I should get my original grain watches that I helped fund. When I do get them I will post pics.

[plexer]

Even if the train uses more fuel as it goes past it's going to be an inconsequential amount.

 

I'm slightly worried that you say your calcs are not based on the turbines under load when generating.

 

Ben

[featured_spectre]

When the full scale prototype is finished, I will be testing it in a wind tunnel with a local company near to me, which can generate wind variances as if a train/car/plane etc were going past. Will cost around £500 for the testing, but it will be invaluable. If I get the results I hope, then happy days, if not, the adjustments will be made.

[pcstru]

Along with the wind that is naturally occurring, the residual energy from air friction as it leaves the train in motion generates the energy.

 

Sorry, I don't follow that at all. Let's make it simple. It's a still air day, there is no natural wind at all. The only things in existence that we need to worry about are a train and a turbine. We can measure the energy used by the train and the energy gained by the turbine.

 

Situation 1 : A train travels for 10 miles at 100mph. It uses X amount of energy. For convenience we measure that in joules.

Situation 2 : A train travels for 10 miles at 100mph. Every mile there are 10 turbines which collect y amount of energy per turbine, so in total Y=100*y total energy. The Train uses Z energy.

 

If the train does not provide the energy to the turbines then Z=X and Y comes from nowhere. You have just won the Nobel prize and saved mankind from a horrible fate frying in our own waste gasses. In fact Z=X+Y (ignoring that situation 2 will involve additional losses).

[pcstru]

Even if the train uses more fuel as it goes past it's going to be an inconsequential amount.

 

It is not inconsequential if in using it, the laws of physics are not broken.

[featured_spectre]

Even if the train uses more fuel as it goes past it's going to be an inconsequential amount.

 

I'm slightly worried that you say your calcs are not based on the turbines under load when generating.

 

Ben

 

I hooked my 10% scale model to a mini homemade generator, it makes around 0.05v from me blowing on it (using my voltmeter and my bike speed gauge says I am blowing around about 18mph).

[pcstru]

I hooked my 10% scale model to a mini homemade generator, it makes around 0.05v from me blowing on it (using my voltmeter and my bike speed gauge says I am blowing around about 18mph).

 

0.05v? How much power does it put out. How does that scale? How much energy is there in a meter cubed of our lovely atmospheric gas mixture moving at 10ms-1 anyway?

 

Before you spend £500 on a wind tunnel test, sign yourself up to Village of the Banned - All Discussions and give some details on your set-up. You might save yourself £500 and learn a lot in the process.

[featured_spectre]

In terms of watts that it generated it was a total of 0.15W for 10 seconds of blowing.

 

Scaled to 1 minute this equates to 0.9W.

Scaled to 1 hour this equates to 54W.

 

Bare in mind that is if it has a constant flow of air.

[Greenbeast]

In terms of watts that it generated it was a total of 0.15W for 10 seconds of blowing.

 

Scaled to 1 minute this equates to 0.9Wh.

Scaled to 1 hour this equates to 54Wh.

 

Bare in mind that is if it has a constant flow of air.

 

there fixed that for you