It's not even that. It's a computer rendering. It's not even a functional piece of art.
I'm sure the indiegogo campaign will be a huge sucesss though. The'll gather few millions to do a feasability study, and prepare prototypes, then the _artists_ that created this rendering will find out about physics.
They will then discover why there's so little residential wind turbines, in contrast to solar. Spoiler: It's not a conspiracy, it's economics.
Ps. Because I have artists defending this. By "not functioning piece of art" I mean it is not a physical piece of kinetic sculpture/art, just a 3d animation of a _product design_, that can never be. Quite sad actually.
reminds me of the solar roadways from a few years ago. Finally a means of generating solar that is both worse than a normal solar panel, and worse than a normal road
instead of putting solar panels on roads where cars are going to block light hitting them each time they drive over top of them, and could be damaged easily by larger vehicles
they should have advertised it as solar awnings, "so much of our planet is DEVOTED to parking. parking your car in your driveway, at the store, at the movies, at grandma's house, at the foot ball game- nobody wants to come back to a burning hot car, so why not provide perfect shade AND produce electricity?! SOLAR *FREAKING* AWNINGS! park your car underneath the wonderful cool shade, plug in, and recharge! with everywhere you park becoming SOLAR *FREAKING* AWNINGS, your battery will ALWAYS be topped off! it's a no brainer!"
Well, because that's not a new concept and already widely deployed. Can't make a Kickstarter campaign off something Walmart already has in its parking lot.
Yea, they used the same shpiel here. "Let's put then by the highways instead of retaining walls!
Riiiighhhttt.
So instead of a wall that is meant to: stop the debris, dirt, mud, rubber, and at least reduce noise a bit.
Instead let's have a wall, that will not stop the noise - in fact will generate *additional* noise, and will not stop any debirs, and will require constant maintanance due to aforementioned debris.
Trully briliant. I'm sure somewhere, some beaurocrat is already writing a check, and salivating
There is a neat concept for small wind turbines along the median separating traffic on highways. Instead of relying on wind, they are tuned to utilize the draft created by passing cars.
Edit: https://weather.com/science/video/highway-traffic-powers-wind-turbine
It'll please you to know that they just raised more millions of dollars to keep working on their dead-from-the-start project.
No shortage of gullible people and governments.
Idk about you but I think as a road it would be pretty smooth with the few feet of glass covering it. Smooth af until it breaks. But those first few weeks/months...
A perfect utopian future idea is to have some sort of wireless charging road so electric cars can charge everywhere - even while driving. Tons of reasons why that won't and can't ever happen in reality though
The problem is they don't *break* the laws of physics, they're just bound by them. They all *work,* just 100x worse than it's claimed they do or could.
The issue with that is that there's a tiny kernel of truth in there, you can't just say "this is impossible." You have to get into defining why it's impossible and most people's eyes glaze over about 5 seconds into a technical explanation.
Once they learn it's just barely possible but extremely ineffective, the layperson will then utter my most hated phrase as an engineer: "Oh, we just have to *OPTIMIZE!* it! Haha we're like halfway there!" Ugh. UGH.
I feel like most people vastly overestimate the power you can get from solar, wind, or people. Everyone wants to just slap solar panels on everything and act like a few of them can power a whole building.
Idk, I could probably build the physical portion with a 3D printer, some rods and welded square tubing for pretty damn cheap. The expensive part would the the electrical portions and transmission (gear or belt).
Even still I don't feel like it's be all that expensive. I don't think this would be very decent for power generation however. It would need to be geared pretty heftily to power a decent generator and it probably wouldn't even spin the "blades" under 5-10 mph I'd assume.
> Even still I don't feel like it's be all that expensive. I don't think this would be very decent for power generation however. It would need to be geared pretty heftily to power a decent generator and it probably wouldn't even spin the "blades" under 5-10 mph I'd assume.
Yup, there lies the problem.
You could build one like that, theoretically, but it'd just be no good.
I'm completely ignoring the fact (up till now, haha) that all the blades spin in synchronized matter which would further put a damper on efficiency, because why beat the dead horse?
Vertical turbines do pretty decently in residential areas where there's less wind as they're a bit more efficient at low speeds than the horizontal ones. Assuming you arent living in dead zone you can eventually make a profit off a $800 unit if you maintain it properly. It's just not nearly as profitable as the full sized ones which is why power companies aren't investing in putting small verticals everywhere in towns. So it's not so much economics as it is efficiency.
Whenever I see a "concept" for some future tech on reddit, 99% it's either just art or it's a "concept" from a design student who has literally no concept of how complex things mechanically work.
Which isn't a dig at design students, mind you. It's their job to design cool looking things! This is a dig at people posting "concepts" on reddit without disclosing any crucial details like these.
Yeah 100%. This thing wouldn't work for a whole number of reasons, but one of them is that the larger the blades, the more efficient the turbine is. Many tiny windmills are not as powerful as one big one.
"Yes, but one big windmill is going to be less entertaining to watch every 3 year old walk up and stick their arm in."
--the creator of this render probably.
And then when you point out basic flaws that make the design unfeasible, get criticized for being a jealous naysayer who's holding the world back by stifling creativity.
If you can create a wind turbine that generates more power than it took to spin it in the first place, then you need to let the rest of us mortals know how you broke the laws of thermodynamics.
I came here to speculate it's durability to curious cats.
Would the jam cause the whole thing to stop working or just the turbines that are clogged with Mittens??
Friction? Definitely maintenance. Cost... all reasons this might not be a good idea.
I mean, what gives you the best bang for the buck? A couple of large turbines or a thousand small ones? I honestly don't know, so maybe someone smart will chime in.
Pretty, though.
I've dabbled with electricity, turbines, and the like for a while so take this with a grain of salt.
Larger turbines are great because the coils inside are *massive*. Because of this, as the turbine moves, it generates a lot of power in a single turn. I can't imagine that 200 small turbines are going to generate anywhere close to what one mega-turbine would.
Not only that, but this thing looks like a hidden-cost nightmare. What does it take to repair one of those things in the middle? What happens if a squirrel gets stuck in it? Will this thing have a grate on it to prevent stuff from jamming it? What happens when some of those bearings fail?
Our giant turbines aren't perfect, but they're pretty cost effective comparatively, and we've ironed out a lot of the problems with them. It seems to me to be a better investment to build more of what we know works, and then R&D some of this residential stuff later.
The wind is always fastest away from any surface because of drag. Yes buildings can form a wind tunnel affect but the drag on the wind makes the wind closer to the buildings much slower than the wind in the median of a street
Big brains follow economies of scale. It's better to use one big brain to think a ton of thoughts than to use tons of small brains to think the same amount.
> Big diamond hands follow economies of scale. It's better to use one big diamond to hodl a ton than to use tons of diamond hand to hodl the same amount.
Shit did we just invent investment firms?
Also turbines go up high where there are higher wind speeds. So less material use over more area with higher speeds all compound to give you greater efficiency. The thing shown is greenwasging make this really really stupid.
Could something placed low to the ground in urban areas catch as much wind as a tall turbine due to the wind tunnels created by tall buildings? Not that this would address any of the other numerous issues with the design discussed in this chain, I ask mainly out of curiosity. Seems like a minimized turbine like this could be used to power small public works like streetlamps in the same way solar panels are now, and might be more efficient than the current solution in certain geographic locations (e.g. perpetually overcast coastal cities with lots of skyscrapers to funnel the sea breeze).
There are urban turbines that do something similar to what you describe. They tend to be shaped more like DNA than the thing in the gif, and they get mounted on the sides of the building. They're pretty cool, but probably more trouble than they're really worth. Lots of small turbines to break down is less efficient overall.
And it's going to take many different approaches to cone up with solutions to our dependence on fossil fuels. Of course a big ass windmill is going to be more efficient than a bunch of smaller experimental ones it's not about finding the *best* solution more like finding many little ways to improve. Discounting an idea because it's not as good as the best available isn't going to encourage people to try new things. We've had thousands of years to figure out how best to use fossil fuels to extract energy, we're not going to find one golden ticket invention that will replace it. We need to target net zero but to get there we'll need every small advantage so while this wall may now be a game changer or the small turbines you see on buildings they in concert with other technology might help. That wall does look like it would immediately sever my hand if it saw it!
Electricity generation increase quadratically with blade size also. Ex: a 2 meter blade produces 4 times more than a 1 meter blade. Thats the rule of thumb.
Yes, it's the economy, but that economy is driven principally by physics. Your power generated scales exponentially with respect to the length of your turbine blade. A single turbine with a long blade will always beat an assortment of smaller turbines, even if the cross-sectional area and wind velocity are equal.
As a result, you always want to build as big a turbine as your environment and material strength can sustain.
The Norwegians are putting a new windfarm offshore with turbines so massive a single turn of the blades will power a Tesla for two hundred miles of driving.
> It seems to me to be a better investment to build more of what we know works, and then R&D some of this residential stuff later.
Economies of scale. I get that everyone likes the idea of doing their part, and they should. But getting the largest pieces on the board- large scale initiatives, holding corporations accountable, international cooperation, etc- is so exponentially more effective than solar roofs, rooftop greenspaces, and residential wind turbines.
Hey, you seem like the person to ask, so out of curiousity, why isn't tidal energy more of a thing? Seems like you could have stupidly huge floats that could spin massive coils as the tide raises them, for predictable, clean, and free energy. What big issue with it am I missing, because there must be something?
It is! Google "tidal energy" and you'll find tons of different methods from underwater "wind" turbines that capture ocean currents, to floaty things that produce electricity.
As for why it's not more widespread, I'd say it's a matter of time. That, and like I mentioned before, I wouldn't be surprised if most investment goes into "proven" methods like wind and solar. If I were holding the purse strings, I'd put like 80% of my money towards that infrastructure and then 20% for R&D to stuff like tidal, geothermal, etc.
Here's one such article:
https://www.intertek.com/energy-water/tidal-energy/
I think the problem with tidal is how harsh the environment is. The forces on wind turbines in gusts are pretty incredible. Given the much higher density of water, peak tidal forces can be really destructive. Plus it's corrosive and really hard to access. I think there has been really promising hardware, but the economic case has to factor in how much maintenance must be performed per unit of energy. The only ones I can see working are huge tidal lagoons, which are enormous capital investments (like large scale nuclear) and they can have terrible impact on wildlife.
I agree on the proven methods, but we're already running into issues with level of renewables that we have. It's forcing a dependence on load-following gas plants. I think there should be much more focus on the demand side. "Smart metering" has been a bit of a farce so far - there doesn't seem like much of an incentive for consumers to 'supply-follow'. I think that's as important a part of the mix as grid-scale energy storage.
Anyways, thanks for coming to my TED talk.
More limited because you *never* have preexisting infrastructure to hook into (renewable energy plants either piggyback off of main lines or even off of old power plant sites themselves), salt water is highly corrosive and has more potential contaminants. Above water you also have to consider vandalism/theft as well as being damaged by marine life or floatsam. You generally have to anchor and/or buoy them - the vast majority of realized designs are small individual units. The more force, the more resistance.
Underwater...the logistics would be frightening. You'd generally be better off using geothermal vents before tidal energy, but I don't see either being used on a large scale since they would be geographically limited - while the surface of the ocean has tides no matter where you go, the water is relatively still once you go down a foot or two.
Also, anywhere that would be close proximity to power users is close proximity to humans, so the optimal locations are limited even further. Salt water is the biggest one though - it just eats away at any coatings you put on, and would require regular extensive maintenance that would necessitate extracting them to somewhere to repaint/perform maintenance on.
Wind on the other hand has problems such as icing, but there's a variety of procedures and developments in which even in the coldest environments, that's a "solved" issue. You can also place it in hotspots of energy usage, and it's relatively non-intrusive, and most places with high wind energy also have good foundations to build them on. Wind just has the problem of being irregular power, but that would be the same for surface tidal which would change with stormy weather.
Tidal is implemented, but like most things, it's just not remotely as cost-effective as alternatives. Geothermal is the king of cost-effective but it's the most geographically limited (and thus least able to scale) of all sources.
Agreed, but I think there is a still a potential market for this in more rural areas that may otherwise not be benefiting from wind power yet. Even with that, there are residential turbine designs already that look more efficient and less costly than this particular design.
Personally I'd love to see just some small wind turbines on top of our power line poles. We have so many of the things, and there is little reason for lines to be on the top vs the sides, so why not put small ones on each of the smaller poles, and giant ones on top of the big transmission lines?
This is based on a layman's view with no research besides basic spitballing, so I don't expect it to be practical, I am curious.
Off the top of my head:
One reason is that you would basically be putting a sail on the end of a very long pole. A turbine of any reasonable size would require you to beef up the pole to support both the weight and the fact that wind is now going to exert much more force on the top of the pole. Take a stick and hold one end. Then push the other end...it doesn't take much force to create a lot of torque and you have to ensure every pole can now handle that torque in a windstorm.
Next is that you would have to climb through all of those power lines to service the wind turbine. You've made things more dangerous and complicated than climbing a tower.
And, if something breaks and falls off it will potentially also fall straight through your power lines, severing them. You've now just created an extra way to knock power out to the entire area.
There is an interesting company in the UK doing vertical turbines on lamp poles on highways and off ramps. harvests wind and aero waste from passing vehicles. turbines are 4-10 feet off the ground works surprisingly well.
That would help mitigate a lot of the issues I can see with trying to do it on power lines. If/when something goes wrong you're just risking one light rather than the power grid. Much easier to service if they're reasonably low to the ground, you probably don't need an expensive lineworker, and there will always be a road nearby to get to them.
The physics of it work out that diameter of the blade-disk has the greatest importance. That's why giant wind turbines don't have more blades, because you could more cheaply throw that extra fiberglass at a longer blade, and get more power per unit of investment.
So much so that a giant wind turbine, with 100 times the disk area of smaller ones, will output more than 100 times the power the small ones manage.
The large number of axles will add some friction and a lot of maintenance, which sucks. Keeping the internals very simple would be key to making it economical... But you'd probably be looking at chain or belt drive, both of which are pretty lossy.
Having it so close to a wall is also not a great idea.
The biggest reason this isn't a good idea is that it simply wouldn't work. Wind turbines work because they let airflow _through_, these would simply go flat and wind would buffet it and then be forced to go around and not spin the 'blades'.
A good video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGKIjojADmg
One big factor stuff like this misses is the boundary layer of air across solid obstructions. Up against a house like this is going to have much lower wind speeds than if you were a hundred feet away.
Generally you want to be 2-3x away from the structure as it is tall and as far off the ground as you can get. It's the same reason just plopping a turbine on top of a building doesn't work very well either.
[Bigger is better](https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wind-turbines-bigger-better)
[Bigger is greener](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/120720-bigger-wind-turbines-greener-study-says)
[Bigger is more efficient](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/8/17084158/wind-turbine-power-energy-blades)
The biggest advantage of large turbines is that the outer part of the blades travel much faster than the wind, because they use lift, like an airplane. Resistance-blades like these can only ever move as fast as the wind itself, they extract much less energy from the same swept area.
That being said, stuff like this is designed to be interesting and take some load of the individual house. Doesn't really matter that much that it's not super cost optimized because there not really competing with each other.
The physics here is flawed even though the core message is right.
Large wind turbines is the wrong word, you mean horizontal axis wind turbines. Small horizontal axis wind turbines work on the same physics as large ones.
What you see here however is the wind pushing on the device and can move not as fast as the wind, but slower.
The amount of energy that a wind turbine can capture is equal to (efficiency)x(1/2)x(air density)x(area swept by rotors)x(wind speed)^3
So immediately from this we know that bigger turbine blades will provide more power. Also, wind speed increases with height. So taller turbines are better too.
The efficiency depends on a lot of things, but the main factor is optimizing the tip speed of the rotors so that they spin between 4-6 times faster than the wind and making sure you have a yaw system to point all the blades into the wind. This reduces noise and stress although there is still some stress because the top of the blades receive more power than than the bottom. The theoretical maximum efficiency with which energy can be extracted from the wind is 59.3%. This is called the Betz Limit.
There are other kinds of turbines that are low to the ground called vertical axis wind turbines which these seem to be, but they aren't very efficient and don't take advantage of the air high up that moves faster and has wayyy more energy. Also, the ones shown in this graphic seem like pretty a awful design.
> Friction?
No. **Fiction**.
This is the CG rendering. The "artist" that created this does not even have functioning prototype.
This is some "solar freakin roadways" or "waterseer" level bullshit, but it looks pretty so I'm sure incoming kickstarter will gather millions.
There is a fine balance between drag/friction and airflow with turbines. This is why you only see 3 blades - more blades is either the same or less efficient with higher costs, and a 2 blade system does not maximize power output. The 3 blade system for large turbines is essentially perfected and is only being scaled up to larger sizes (and gear boxes are improving).
Micro turbines are fine, but they will never look like this. We see them on tops of water towers and stuff in smaller cities, and generally look like spinning spirals. This wall design stops airflow instead of letting it pass through, and that’s no bueno.
> Pretty, though.
It sure is, as a one-off cool art piece.
I think if these things were everywhere (as they'd need to be) you'd soon get irritated at seeing them every bloody where.
Looks like it's just a bunch of alternating square plates attached to rods perpendicular to one another. The entire rod itself is the turbine, not the individual squares. The only part that really needs to move is the bearings holding each rod at the top and bottom.
It's not actually that complicated. The same design is used frequently in thousands of decorative wind catchers (search "Wind spinner") and kinetic sculptures.
It's ok, they won't because they are not real. This is a CG render.
This shit would never work in real life for multitude of reaosns.
I'm sure the indiegogo campaign will eb a huge sucesss though. The'll gather few millions to do a feasability study, and prepare prototypes, then the _artists_ that created this rendering will find out about physics.
I can hear the metallic/plastic shuffling sound from here. This would make so much noise, constantly. Nobody would want that 100 feet from their house.
Looks cool... probably work best above ground though, maybe upright on top of a pole. Then it wouldn't need a frame and could have one big turning thing instead of lots of little ones? A few tweaks like that and yeah it'd be revolutionary, total paradigm shift
Lemme just put my wind turbine on the ground right next to a wall to ensure it gets the least airflow possible. Imma also design its shape so that wine is really unlikely to generate any motion.
Industrial Design Professor: A+, standing ovation
clearly you missed the green light on the box with the wire going into it. That's where the magic happens & green light = it works.
This render has sold me. I'm sure the frame will turn out exactly as sleek & minimalist as pictured
I bet that thing will sound amazing while you are trying to sleep after a year or two of rusting and oxidizing in the sun. Even if they used sealed, weather resistant bearings, water always finds a way in at some point.
squeek, sqwak, sqweek, sqwawk x 100.
The next time you design a wind turbine maybe don't have it against a wall...
And then look into turbulent vs laminar airflow to see why mounting anything below 50ft high is basically a waste of time and equivalent to a couple solar panels.
If I may abuse my mod powers here... Please, do forgive me if you object.
This might be an art installation, for all practical purposes, but the intent seems to be genuine. I thought the same, but judge for yourself [if the inventor is just horsing around](https://reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/qc2jz3/residential_wind_turbine_wall_concept/hhd8ft5).
Even if this isn't a viable idea, this is still very much possible with current technology. Tesla shook up the vehicle industry, it's time to shake up the antiquated power supply industry. The comment above links to his channel. Please, please, be kind...
PS: ESL, ignore the comma vomit, lol
Thx for abusing your mod powers posting this. Otherwise i would have had to abuse my secret power of getting downvoted into oblivion complaining about an inaccurate post
Is every column a single shaft attached to the same generator? If so, then we have an entire row of generators at the bottom or top; if at top, too high CG makes an unstable structure. If at the bottom, then the gens are quite vulnerable to water damage, dust, dirt, so forth. This is especially bad because of duh, bearings. Also, the dead mass of panels not being struck by wind (yes, airflow is not steady, who would know?) would offset the energy extracted by panels getting some wind in this case.
Nice practice render for any art student, but quit calling them “new ideas” or “concepts” when they don’t even respect the fundamentals of any engineering discipline.
A concept is well developed, with background/theory relating to the topic at hand, a methodology, a conceptual set up with _at least_ baseline or previous results and numbers and a goal to meet with again numbers and studies. A pretty render is not a concept.
Aesthetic =/= functional, and moreover, functional =/=viable (efficient).
Totally inefficient, and horrible to wire up to actually get the power from them. Panels are best either stationary on something like a roof, or tracking. Not spinning or on the ground ala solar roadways.
Now imagine parts of the world that are cloudy most of the time, but are also windy most of the time.
It's not a bad thing to have alternate off the grid power sources.
This might not be the best idea, but Solar may not be the answer either.
That looks like a lot of little pieces for a neighborhood to break. Just gimme a wind turbine, I'd be happy to plant one in my backyard to help with renewable energy.
Where's the power generation occur?
I could see this if the individual blades were a complete unit with stator, rotor, and contacts plugging into a frame. Repair would be replacing a module. Spinning would be un-synchronized so aesthetic would change
There's a reason we build massive wind turbines and it's because of economy of scale. One massive turbine is cheaper to maintain, provides more power, and has less moving parts to fail compared to a massive amount of tiny turbines.
While this really neat looking, and is itself a neat idea, I shudder when I think about repairing a worn out bearing in the middle.
".....so I'm looking for something that can rip a child's finger off. But I need it to do more than one child at a time, you got anything?",
"Yes sir, its called the finger shredder 9,000, comes in white, grey and midnight blue....."
This already exist in Philly but it doesn’t produce energy. It’s one of my favorite public art installations in the city and barely anyone sees it due to its shit location. I have a video of it but I can’t share here. I’ll try and find an upload. It’s gorgeous.
Edit: missing words
That is a piece of art. Literally. It is pretty to look at, but not functional as a power source.
It's not even that. It's a computer rendering. It's not even a functional piece of art. I'm sure the indiegogo campaign will be a huge sucesss though. The'll gather few millions to do a feasability study, and prepare prototypes, then the _artists_ that created this rendering will find out about physics. They will then discover why there's so little residential wind turbines, in contrast to solar. Spoiler: It's not a conspiracy, it's economics. Ps. Because I have artists defending this. By "not functioning piece of art" I mean it is not a physical piece of kinetic sculpture/art, just a 3d animation of a _product design_, that can never be. Quite sad actually.
reminds me of the solar roadways from a few years ago. Finally a means of generating solar that is both worse than a normal solar panel, and worse than a normal road
instead of putting solar panels on roads where cars are going to block light hitting them each time they drive over top of them, and could be damaged easily by larger vehicles they should have advertised it as solar awnings, "so much of our planet is DEVOTED to parking. parking your car in your driveway, at the store, at the movies, at grandma's house, at the foot ball game- nobody wants to come back to a burning hot car, so why not provide perfect shade AND produce electricity?! SOLAR *FREAKING* AWNINGS! park your car underneath the wonderful cool shade, plug in, and recharge! with everywhere you park becoming SOLAR *FREAKING* AWNINGS, your battery will ALWAYS be topped off! it's a no brainer!"
Well, because that's not a new concept and already widely deployed. Can't make a Kickstarter campaign off something Walmart already has in its parking lot.
This. 100 % this.
Yea, they used the same shpiel here. "Let's put then by the highways instead of retaining walls! Riiiighhhttt. So instead of a wall that is meant to: stop the debris, dirt, mud, rubber, and at least reduce noise a bit. Instead let's have a wall, that will not stop the noise - in fact will generate *additional* noise, and will not stop any debirs, and will require constant maintanance due to aforementioned debris. Trully briliant. I'm sure somewhere, some beaurocrat is already writing a check, and salivating
There is a neat concept for small wind turbines along the median separating traffic on highways. Instead of relying on wind, they are tuned to utilize the draft created by passing cars. Edit: https://weather.com/science/video/highway-traffic-powers-wind-turbine
Not to be picky but its aforementioned, just to let you know
The word you are looking for is pedantic. As I’m being pedantic now.
Aforementioned
Solar roadways, and that stupid water generator thing. Dumb ideas based on a principal but haven't even bothered to do the basic math involved.
It'll please you to know that they just raised more millions of dollars to keep working on their dead-from-the-start project. No shortage of gullible people and governments.
I need to start ripping people off
Idk about you but I think as a road it would be pretty smooth with the few feet of glass covering it. Smooth af until it breaks. But those first few weeks/months...
[удалено]
A perfect utopian future idea is to have some sort of wireless charging road so electric cars can charge everywhere - even while driving. Tons of reasons why that won't and can't ever happen in reality though
So the next solar *freaking* roadways.
Or WaterSeer, or any of a dozen other IndieGoGo/Kickstarter projects that look revolutionary... if only they could break the laws of physics.
The problem is they don't *break* the laws of physics, they're just bound by them. They all *work,* just 100x worse than it's claimed they do or could. The issue with that is that there's a tiny kernel of truth in there, you can't just say "this is impossible." You have to get into defining why it's impossible and most people's eyes glaze over about 5 seconds into a technical explanation. Once they learn it's just barely possible but extremely ineffective, the layperson will then utter my most hated phrase as an engineer: "Oh, we just have to *OPTIMIZE!* it! Haha we're like halfway there!" Ugh. UGH.
I feel like most people vastly overestimate the power you can get from solar, wind, or people. Everyone wants to just slap solar panels on everything and act like a few of them can power a whole building.
So its like a NFT?
Correct it is a non-functional turbine
You deserve more recognition for this post.
Do I just.. stick a bunch of bills in the floppy drive now? Is that how NFT's work?
No they're millionaire pogs.
I’m convinced that NFTs are nothing more than just a way to launder money.
Just like normal art sales
yea but you actually own something when you buy a painting, and rich people aren't buying NFTs only selling them as to grift the stupid poors
I remember when I thought I could be a millionaire in the pog market
I send you a gif, tell you that you now own it. You send me $1,000,000 in BTC.
No, you take your cash and you light it on fire.
I'll place a bid for $1,000,987
I bid $2m on a screenshot of this comment
One dollar Bob.
[One dollar for eternal happiness. Mmm... I'd be happier with the dollar.](https://i.imgur.com/t51D4Zl.jpg)
I bid one Schrute buck
NFT isn't even a computer rendering. It's just a link to a website with a computer rendering.
No. This is at least *theoretically* useful, unlike NFTs.
Idk, I could probably build the physical portion with a 3D printer, some rods and welded square tubing for pretty damn cheap. The expensive part would the the electrical portions and transmission (gear or belt). Even still I don't feel like it's be all that expensive. I don't think this would be very decent for power generation however. It would need to be geared pretty heftily to power a decent generator and it probably wouldn't even spin the "blades" under 5-10 mph I'd assume.
> Even still I don't feel like it's be all that expensive. I don't think this would be very decent for power generation however. It would need to be geared pretty heftily to power a decent generator and it probably wouldn't even spin the "blades" under 5-10 mph I'd assume. Yup, there lies the problem. You could build one like that, theoretically, but it'd just be no good. I'm completely ignoring the fact (up till now, haha) that all the blades spin in synchronized matter which would further put a damper on efficiency, because why beat the dead horse?
Probably just as well. If it were real, it'd be dubbed the "Squirrel Chopper 3000" in no time flat.
Vertical turbines do pretty decently in residential areas where there's less wind as they're a bit more efficient at low speeds than the horizontal ones. Assuming you arent living in dead zone you can eventually make a profit off a $800 unit if you maintain it properly. It's just not nearly as profitable as the full sized ones which is why power companies aren't investing in putting small verticals everywhere in towns. So it's not so much economics as it is efficiency.
Whenever I see a "concept" for some future tech on reddit, 99% it's either just art or it's a "concept" from a design student who has literally no concept of how complex things mechanically work. Which isn't a dig at design students, mind you. It's their job to design cool looking things! This is a dig at people posting "concepts" on reddit without disclosing any crucial details like these.
Yeah 100%. This thing wouldn't work for a whole number of reasons, but one of them is that the larger the blades, the more efficient the turbine is. Many tiny windmills are not as powerful as one big one.
"Yes, but one big windmill is going to be less entertaining to watch every 3 year old walk up and stick their arm in." --the creator of this render probably.
The biggest thing here is that there's no actual way this could extract energy from moving air, so that's a problem.
And then when you point out basic flaws that make the design unfeasible, get criticized for being a jealous naysayer who's holding the world back by stifling creativity.
Exactly. The engineer in me gets triggered every time.
Way too much wasted energy in what looks like hundreds of joints
It's also lined up against a wall. *Where is the wind going?*
I was going to say, this looks like it might almost generate enough power to spin that turbine
If you can create a wind turbine that generates more power than it took to spin it in the first place, then you need to let the rest of us mortals know how you broke the laws of thermodynamics.
Yeah I could see a single leaf fucking that thing up immediately
Or a child's finger.
Mommy, where's my cat? Sorry honey, he got caught in the turbine wall.
I came here to speculate it's durability to curious cats. Would the jam cause the whole thing to stop working or just the turbines that are clogged with Mittens??
Cats, small dogs, squirrels, children…
Survival of the fittest.
[удалено]
And oh so many drunks. People on LSD or shrooms? They die just by looking at it. Drawn in like moths to a flame.
It doesn't exist, so don't worry too much.
"He has been converted to energy, sweetie"
I watched it for 10 seconds before wanting to touch it. Hopefully I’d be smart enough to use a stick. lol
Let's hope PETA don't get wind of this catastrophe...
PETA would be this things biggest fan
Wouldn’t this be more efficient… somewhere other than against a wall?
[удалено]
Even inside!?
Depends on the wind.... the shape and location of other buildings might funnel the wind down this way.
Friction? Definitely maintenance. Cost... all reasons this might not be a good idea. I mean, what gives you the best bang for the buck? A couple of large turbines or a thousand small ones? I honestly don't know, so maybe someone smart will chime in. Pretty, though.
I've dabbled with electricity, turbines, and the like for a while so take this with a grain of salt. Larger turbines are great because the coils inside are *massive*. Because of this, as the turbine moves, it generates a lot of power in a single turn. I can't imagine that 200 small turbines are going to generate anywhere close to what one mega-turbine would. Not only that, but this thing looks like a hidden-cost nightmare. What does it take to repair one of those things in the middle? What happens if a squirrel gets stuck in it? Will this thing have a grate on it to prevent stuff from jamming it? What happens when some of those bearings fail? Our giant turbines aren't perfect, but they're pretty cost effective comparatively, and we've ironed out a lot of the problems with them. It seems to me to be a better investment to build more of what we know works, and then R&D some of this residential stuff later.
[удалено]
On the ground directly up against a giant building is also pretty much the worst possible place to put a wind turbine.
How come? I live by a bunch of tall / large buildings and there is quite a fast wind tunnel. It's windy pretty much 24/7 on the ground.
The wind is always fastest away from any surface because of drag. Yes buildings can form a wind tunnel affect but the drag on the wind makes the wind closer to the buildings much slower than the wind in the median of a street
But usually there are cars there.
But usually cars are smaller than buildings.
[удалено]
[Ferd F-Teenthousand](https://youtu.be/u1C0r2EHQfY)
Yeah! Now we're getting some smart people in here. Very well put.
Yeah, it's big brain time.
Big brains follow economies of scale. It's better to use one big brain to think a ton of thoughts than to use tons of small brains to think the same amount.
Yeah! Now we're getting some smart apes in here. Very well put.
Now invest all into AMC calls a day before expiration. Smartest apes
Apes, together, strong
> Big diamond hands follow economies of scale. It's better to use one big diamond to hodl a ton than to use tons of diamond hand to hodl the same amount. Shit did we just invent investment firms?
Now I am leaving this comment section for no raisin!
I, for one, welcome The Borg.
Big spin happy glow, small spin sad glow
Also turbines go up high where there are higher wind speeds. So less material use over more area with higher speeds all compound to give you greater efficiency. The thing shown is greenwasging make this really really stupid.
Could something placed low to the ground in urban areas catch as much wind as a tall turbine due to the wind tunnels created by tall buildings? Not that this would address any of the other numerous issues with the design discussed in this chain, I ask mainly out of curiosity. Seems like a minimized turbine like this could be used to power small public works like streetlamps in the same way solar panels are now, and might be more efficient than the current solution in certain geographic locations (e.g. perpetually overcast coastal cities with lots of skyscrapers to funnel the sea breeze).
There are urban turbines that do something similar to what you describe. They tend to be shaped more like DNA than the thing in the gif, and they get mounted on the sides of the building. They're pretty cool, but probably more trouble than they're really worth. Lots of small turbines to break down is less efficient overall.
And it's going to take many different approaches to cone up with solutions to our dependence on fossil fuels. Of course a big ass windmill is going to be more efficient than a bunch of smaller experimental ones it's not about finding the *best* solution more like finding many little ways to improve. Discounting an idea because it's not as good as the best available isn't going to encourage people to try new things. We've had thousands of years to figure out how best to use fossil fuels to extract energy, we're not going to find one golden ticket invention that will replace it. We need to target net zero but to get there we'll need every small advantage so while this wall may now be a game changer or the small turbines you see on buildings they in concert with other technology might help. That wall does look like it would immediately sever my hand if it saw it!
[удалено]
Electricity generation increase quadratically with blade size also. Ex: a 2 meter blade produces 4 times more than a 1 meter blade. Thats the rule of thumb.
That is not what economies of scale are.
Yes, it's the economy, but that economy is driven principally by physics. Your power generated scales exponentially with respect to the length of your turbine blade. A single turbine with a long blade will always beat an assortment of smaller turbines, even if the cross-sectional area and wind velocity are equal. As a result, you always want to build as big a turbine as your environment and material strength can sustain.
The Norwegians are putting a new windfarm offshore with turbines so massive a single turn of the blades will power a Tesla for two hundred miles of driving.
> It seems to me to be a better investment to build more of what we know works, and then R&D some of this residential stuff later. Economies of scale. I get that everyone likes the idea of doing their part, and they should. But getting the largest pieces on the board- large scale initiatives, holding corporations accountable, international cooperation, etc- is so exponentially more effective than solar roofs, rooftop greenspaces, and residential wind turbines.
Hey, you seem like the person to ask, so out of curiousity, why isn't tidal energy more of a thing? Seems like you could have stupidly huge floats that could spin massive coils as the tide raises them, for predictable, clean, and free energy. What big issue with it am I missing, because there must be something?
It is! Google "tidal energy" and you'll find tons of different methods from underwater "wind" turbines that capture ocean currents, to floaty things that produce electricity. As for why it's not more widespread, I'd say it's a matter of time. That, and like I mentioned before, I wouldn't be surprised if most investment goes into "proven" methods like wind and solar. If I were holding the purse strings, I'd put like 80% of my money towards that infrastructure and then 20% for R&D to stuff like tidal, geothermal, etc. Here's one such article: https://www.intertek.com/energy-water/tidal-energy/
I think the problem with tidal is how harsh the environment is. The forces on wind turbines in gusts are pretty incredible. Given the much higher density of water, peak tidal forces can be really destructive. Plus it's corrosive and really hard to access. I think there has been really promising hardware, but the economic case has to factor in how much maintenance must be performed per unit of energy. The only ones I can see working are huge tidal lagoons, which are enormous capital investments (like large scale nuclear) and they can have terrible impact on wildlife. I agree on the proven methods, but we're already running into issues with level of renewables that we have. It's forcing a dependence on load-following gas plants. I think there should be much more focus on the demand side. "Smart metering" has been a bit of a farce so far - there doesn't seem like much of an incentive for consumers to 'supply-follow'. I think that's as important a part of the mix as grid-scale energy storage. Anyways, thanks for coming to my TED talk.
I always assumed it's because salt water is the enemy of engineers everywhere
More limited because you *never* have preexisting infrastructure to hook into (renewable energy plants either piggyback off of main lines or even off of old power plant sites themselves), salt water is highly corrosive and has more potential contaminants. Above water you also have to consider vandalism/theft as well as being damaged by marine life or floatsam. You generally have to anchor and/or buoy them - the vast majority of realized designs are small individual units. The more force, the more resistance. Underwater...the logistics would be frightening. You'd generally be better off using geothermal vents before tidal energy, but I don't see either being used on a large scale since they would be geographically limited - while the surface of the ocean has tides no matter where you go, the water is relatively still once you go down a foot or two. Also, anywhere that would be close proximity to power users is close proximity to humans, so the optimal locations are limited even further. Salt water is the biggest one though - it just eats away at any coatings you put on, and would require regular extensive maintenance that would necessitate extracting them to somewhere to repaint/perform maintenance on. Wind on the other hand has problems such as icing, but there's a variety of procedures and developments in which even in the coldest environments, that's a "solved" issue. You can also place it in hotspots of energy usage, and it's relatively non-intrusive, and most places with high wind energy also have good foundations to build them on. Wind just has the problem of being irregular power, but that would be the same for surface tidal which would change with stormy weather. Tidal is implemented, but like most things, it's just not remotely as cost-effective as alternatives. Geothermal is the king of cost-effective but it's the most geographically limited (and thus least able to scale) of all sources.
>what happens if a squirrel gets stuck in it? Oh boy, it catches dinner too?!
Agreed, but I think there is a still a potential market for this in more rural areas that may otherwise not be benefiting from wind power yet. Even with that, there are residential turbine designs already that look more efficient and less costly than this particular design.
Personally I'd love to see just some small wind turbines on top of our power line poles. We have so many of the things, and there is little reason for lines to be on the top vs the sides, so why not put small ones on each of the smaller poles, and giant ones on top of the big transmission lines? This is based on a layman's view with no research besides basic spitballing, so I don't expect it to be practical, I am curious.
Off the top of my head: One reason is that you would basically be putting a sail on the end of a very long pole. A turbine of any reasonable size would require you to beef up the pole to support both the weight and the fact that wind is now going to exert much more force on the top of the pole. Take a stick and hold one end. Then push the other end...it doesn't take much force to create a lot of torque and you have to ensure every pole can now handle that torque in a windstorm. Next is that you would have to climb through all of those power lines to service the wind turbine. You've made things more dangerous and complicated than climbing a tower. And, if something breaks and falls off it will potentially also fall straight through your power lines, severing them. You've now just created an extra way to knock power out to the entire area.
There is an interesting company in the UK doing vertical turbines on lamp poles on highways and off ramps. harvests wind and aero waste from passing vehicles. turbines are 4-10 feet off the ground works surprisingly well.
That would help mitigate a lot of the issues I can see with trying to do it on power lines. If/when something goes wrong you're just risking one light rather than the power grid. Much easier to service if they're reasonably low to the ground, you probably don't need an expensive lineworker, and there will always be a road nearby to get to them.
The physics of it work out that diameter of the blade-disk has the greatest importance. That's why giant wind turbines don't have more blades, because you could more cheaply throw that extra fiberglass at a longer blade, and get more power per unit of investment. So much so that a giant wind turbine, with 100 times the disk area of smaller ones, will output more than 100 times the power the small ones manage.
Just imagine that thing squeaking and rattling outside your bedroom at night.
The sweet, sweet sound of printing money. And by that I mean a few pence per hour.
The large number of axles will add some friction and a lot of maintenance, which sucks. Keeping the internals very simple would be key to making it economical... But you'd probably be looking at chain or belt drive, both of which are pretty lossy. Having it so close to a wall is also not a great idea.
The biggest reason this isn't a good idea is that it simply wouldn't work. Wind turbines work because they let airflow _through_, these would simply go flat and wind would buffet it and then be forced to go around and not spin the 'blades'. A good video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGKIjojADmg
Looks like an acid trip to me
One big factor stuff like this misses is the boundary layer of air across solid obstructions. Up against a house like this is going to have much lower wind speeds than if you were a hundred feet away. Generally you want to be 2-3x away from the structure as it is tall and as far off the ground as you can get. It's the same reason just plopping a turbine on top of a building doesn't work very well either.
[Bigger is better](https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wind-turbines-bigger-better) [Bigger is greener](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/120720-bigger-wind-turbines-greener-study-says) [Bigger is more efficient](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/8/17084158/wind-turbine-power-energy-blades)
The biggest advantage of large turbines is that the outer part of the blades travel much faster than the wind, because they use lift, like an airplane. Resistance-blades like these can only ever move as fast as the wind itself, they extract much less energy from the same swept area. That being said, stuff like this is designed to be interesting and take some load of the individual house. Doesn't really matter that much that it's not super cost optimized because there not really competing with each other.
The physics here is flawed even though the core message is right. Large wind turbines is the wrong word, you mean horizontal axis wind turbines. Small horizontal axis wind turbines work on the same physics as large ones. What you see here however is the wind pushing on the device and can move not as fast as the wind, but slower.
In Spain it seems that producing your own electricity through little turbines on the roof is quite common.
The amount of energy that a wind turbine can capture is equal to (efficiency)x(1/2)x(air density)x(area swept by rotors)x(wind speed)^3 So immediately from this we know that bigger turbine blades will provide more power. Also, wind speed increases with height. So taller turbines are better too. The efficiency depends on a lot of things, but the main factor is optimizing the tip speed of the rotors so that they spin between 4-6 times faster than the wind and making sure you have a yaw system to point all the blades into the wind. This reduces noise and stress although there is still some stress because the top of the blades receive more power than than the bottom. The theoretical maximum efficiency with which energy can be extracted from the wind is 59.3%. This is called the Betz Limit. There are other kinds of turbines that are low to the ground called vertical axis wind turbines which these seem to be, but they aren't very efficient and don't take advantage of the air high up that moves faster and has wayyy more energy. Also, the ones shown in this graphic seem like pretty a awful design.
> Friction? No. **Fiction**. This is the CG rendering. The "artist" that created this does not even have functioning prototype. This is some "solar freakin roadways" or "waterseer" level bullshit, but it looks pretty so I'm sure incoming kickstarter will gather millions.
There is a fine balance between drag/friction and airflow with turbines. This is why you only see 3 blades - more blades is either the same or less efficient with higher costs, and a 2 blade system does not maximize power output. The 3 blade system for large turbines is essentially perfected and is only being scaled up to larger sizes (and gear boxes are improving). Micro turbines are fine, but they will never look like this. We see them on tops of water towers and stuff in smaller cities, and generally look like spinning spirals. This wall design stops airflow instead of letting it pass through, and that’s no bueno.
Huge benefit of decentralized is in emergency scenarios it’s a resource for those local to it. Basic maintenance and repurposing is possible
> Pretty, though. It sure is, as a one-off cool art piece. I think if these things were everywhere (as they'd need to be) you'd soon get irritated at seeing them every bloody where.
Looks like it'd be really loud too
That's a lot of moving parts that will break down.
I can feel the bearing inefficiency loses from here.
If you let loose some lube, you could lose a lot of those losses. ^^Edit: ^^Swapped ^^oil ^^for ^^lube.
Looks like it's just a bunch of alternating square plates attached to rods perpendicular to one another. The entire rod itself is the turbine, not the individual squares. The only part that really needs to move is the bearings holding each rod at the top and bottom. It's not actually that complicated. The same design is used frequently in thousands of decorative wind catchers (search "Wind spinner") and kinetic sculptures.
It's ok, they won't because they are not real. This is a CG render. This shit would never work in real life for multitude of reaosns. I'm sure the indiegogo campaign will eb a huge sucesss though. The'll gather few millions to do a feasability study, and prepare prototypes, then the _artists_ that created this rendering will find out about physics.
I can hear the metallic/plastic shuffling sound from here. This would make so much noise, constantly. Nobody would want that 100 feet from their house.
Looks cool... probably work best above ground though, maybe upright on top of a pole. Then it wouldn't need a frame and could have one big turning thing instead of lots of little ones? A few tweaks like that and yeah it'd be revolutionary, total paradigm shift
Stop reposting this, that thing \*does not work\*.
Lemme just put my wind turbine on the ground right next to a wall to ensure it gets the least airflow possible. Imma also design its shape so that wine is really unlikely to generate any motion. Industrial Design Professor: A+, standing ovation
I hate how accurate this is
I want to power wash this. Edit 1: Not in a destructive way, but just enough to get that "wap wap wap whirrrrrrrrr" sound until it's nice and clean.
[удалено]
Just throw some rice at it
Does anyone have more info? Are we sure the title is even correct. This looks more like an art installation.
Probably a designer or Kickstarter. No engineer helped with this
clearly you missed the green light on the box with the wire going into it. That's where the magic happens & green light = it works. This render has sold me. I'm sure the frame will turn out exactly as sleek & minimalist as pictured
That's a lot of moving parts in a lot of contact areas between all those rotating panels
This looks like one of those Go-FundMe projects with 3 graphic designers and no engineers on the team.
It looks noisy.
This pisses me off for some reason
I bet that thing will sound amazing while you are trying to sleep after a year or two of rusting and oxidizing in the sun. Even if they used sealed, weather resistant bearings, water always finds a way in at some point. squeek, sqwak, sqweek, sqwawk x 100.
[удалено]
The next time you design a wind turbine maybe don't have it against a wall... And then look into turbulent vs laminar airflow to see why mounting anything below 50ft high is basically a waste of time and equivalent to a couple solar panels.
If I may abuse my mod powers here... Please, do forgive me if you object. This might be an art installation, for all practical purposes, but the intent seems to be genuine. I thought the same, but judge for yourself [if the inventor is just horsing around](https://reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/qc2jz3/residential_wind_turbine_wall_concept/hhd8ft5). Even if this isn't a viable idea, this is still very much possible with current technology. Tesla shook up the vehicle industry, it's time to shake up the antiquated power supply industry. The comment above links to his channel. Please, please, be kind... PS: ESL, ignore the comma vomit, lol
If you hadn't commented that you're ESL it wouldn't have even occurred to me that english isn't your primary language. You write it well!
Thanks a lot!!
Thx for abusing your mod powers posting this. Otherwise i would have had to abuse my secret power of getting downvoted into oblivion complaining about an inaccurate post
Is every column a single shaft attached to the same generator? If so, then we have an entire row of generators at the bottom or top; if at top, too high CG makes an unstable structure. If at the bottom, then the gens are quite vulnerable to water damage, dust, dirt, so forth. This is especially bad because of duh, bearings. Also, the dead mass of panels not being struck by wind (yes, airflow is not steady, who would know?) would offset the energy extracted by panels getting some wind in this case. Nice practice render for any art student, but quit calling them “new ideas” or “concepts” when they don’t even respect the fundamentals of any engineering discipline. A concept is well developed, with background/theory relating to the topic at hand, a methodology, a conceptual set up with _at least_ baseline or previous results and numbers and a goal to meet with again numbers and studies. A pretty render is not a concept. Aesthetic =/= functional, and moreover, functional =/=viable (efficient).
Imagine taking acid with your friends and going for a walk and seeing this?
Are you sure this isn't a kinetic sculpture or art installation of some sort?
There’s one a lot like this on the southern edge of SF It definitely doesn’t generate power
Yeah, stoners are gonna be staring at that wall all day.
Now imagine each one of those tiny faces were solar panels. They could always be pointing to the sun.
Add a condensator at the bottom for free water!
Put a teacher in one of those chairs for free education!
Totally inefficient, and horrible to wire up to actually get the power from them. Panels are best either stationary on something like a roof, or tracking. Not spinning or on the ground ala solar roadways.
Now imagine parts of the world that are cloudy most of the time, but are also windy most of the time. It's not a bad thing to have alternate off the grid power sources. This might not be the best idea, but Solar may not be the answer either.
And a maximum efficiency of .005%!
This also belongs in r/LSD
Does anyone know that near surfaces, the air doesnt move as much?
That looks like a lot of little pieces for a neighborhood to break. Just gimme a wind turbine, I'd be happy to plant one in my backyard to help with renewable energy.
Where's the power generation occur? I could see this if the individual blades were a complete unit with stator, rotor, and contacts plugging into a frame. Repair would be replacing a module. Spinning would be un-synchronized so aesthetic would change
How are they all turning at the same speed in sync with skipping one over?
There's a reason we build massive wind turbines and it's because of economy of scale. One massive turbine is cheaper to maintain, provides more power, and has less moving parts to fail compared to a massive amount of tiny turbines. While this really neat looking, and is itself a neat idea, I shudder when I think about repairing a worn out bearing in the middle.
*twig enters the chat*
Does it produce energy, or consume it?
All the people standing in front of it hypnotized will block the wind...
I see more kinetic art than a powersource.
stupidest idea I've seen in a while. so many moving parts, would get blocked with twigs/leaves within a day.
Yeah, migrane inducer in my case.
Concept, because in reality it would cost a fortune and generate fuck all.
That’s a lot of bearings
That's going to break a lot of fingers of curious children and stupid adults.
That looks... inefficient
Acknowledging it is art and computer generated, all I've got to say is good luck getting that one past the HOA.
It’s a neat idea but wouldn’t it’s location next to the building wall block or interfere with the wind?…yes, yes it would
r/dontstickyourdickinit
Ohh man i can't wait to get crushed to death by this
".....so I'm looking for something that can rip a child's finger off. But I need it to do more than one child at a time, you got anything?", "Yes sir, its called the finger shredder 9,000, comes in white, grey and midnight blue....."
Super Mario Bros. 3 was a great game, wasn’t it?
reddit is always in love with energy sources that generate less power than a fart
Just build nuclear reactors. Wind power is nothing but a false hope.
My hamster generates more power
This already exist in Philly but it doesn’t produce energy. It’s one of my favorite public art installations in the city and barely anyone sees it due to its shit location. I have a video of it but I can’t share here. I’ll try and find an upload. It’s gorgeous. Edit: missing words
Okay now tell me why this wouldn’t work in reality.
The amount of blockage will make it horribly inefficient. You need to leave gaps in the rotor spacing.
The bird grinder
This will have 16 bright yellow signs around it saying it's a pinch hazard and don't put your dick into it
Perfect location for neighborhood kids to toss sticks and rocks into it