Why presently used formula for Kinetic Energy of Wind has Error of 75%
1st. Formula for Kinetic Energy of Wind is m * v^2, not just half of this. It is true that only half can be used because standard WPSs are just pushed by Wind.
However fact that 100% effective turbine would extract 100% of energy from Wind was considered statistically insignificant because on each other pass it have only 50% of energy to extract, other 50% being spent on pushing stopped air out of turbine.
2nd. Average Wind speed is false datum and bring another 50% error, as if Wind blow 10m/sec one hour and one hour it is not blowing then average is 5m/sec Wind speed, right?
However, 2 * 5^2 is 50, while 1 *10^2 is 100.
Therefore, error is 75% as only 25% can be extracted, but this is considered to be ALL Kinetic Energy of Wind according to mutilated formula for Maximum Extractable Kinetic energy of Wind that is
1.0 * 1/2 * m * v^2
where leading 1.0 is efficiency Coefficient of 100% effective turbine, but some Matematician tought it can be removed as result apparently do not change.
So foreshortened formula was on first sight looking like formula for Kinetic Energy of Body in free fall, which was verified long way back, so they started using it as correct.
However there is slight difference between it where Delta v is each passing second increasing uniformly under influence of Gravity, and actual speed of Wind that could be same, greater or less in next second.
Therefore it is not same formula and it is not applicable to Wind.
That is shortest explanation I can write.
Such HUGE error is main reason for failures of contemporary Wind Power Stations in field, because all is calculated to withstand just 1/4 of actuall Kinetic Force of Wind.
Since this discovery would save many millions of $ or € to companies that manufacture Aerogenerators, it would be right that they donate at least one million each to poor Inventor with extremely revolutionary new turbines that would be able to produce at least 144 TIMES more electricity from Wind used by just ONE of their Multi MW units, and on same area of land or sea.
David, sorry but I have seen Your message just now. Betz Law was incorect for using faulty formula from start and then was deformed by firing one Caligraphy Rule so correct Formula VL/V1, where VL = V1 - V2 become V2/V1 in instant Herr Betz have written it, so even he could not read it as intended. Unfortunately ratio of V2/V1 simply cannot be Efficiency Coeficient, as V2 or Air speed behind turbine represent all energy Turbine was not able to extract or convert, therefore it could be ONLY Ineficiency Coefficient. I was in unique position to spot what happened, after seeing illogic of claim it is Efficiency Coefficient. Statistical approach to energy calculations is by itself causing further mistakes, and first pass of Wind trough turbine, when 100% eficient turbine should logically extract 100% energy from Wind was considered "Statisticaly Insignificant" as on every other pass Turbine extract at most 50% of Wind Energy.
CEO at Arete Microbial Products, LLC
8 年Marijan, how does your hypothesis apply to Betz Law?
Technical Chair, World Wind Energy Association
8 年Its Kinetic Energy https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Kinetic-Energy
Earth Sustainable Solutions / Agronomy / Environment | Education / Internacional Senior Consultant | National & International Speaker 17, 900 +
8 年Thank you for sharing this article Mr. Marijan Pollak