backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 68 comment(s) - last by Carter642.. on May 8 at 10:53 PM

An artist rendering of how the MARS system is designed to work.  (Source: Magenn Power)

The MARS system is fully built and undergoing testing, on the road to commercial deployment.  (Source: Magenn CEO Pierre Rivard)
It's a blimp, It's a dirigible!

While interest in solar power is picking up, another technology is also gaining a lot of attention.  The chief problems with wind power are consistency and strength of the winds.  Some areas simply do not get strong winds regularly and even areas that do can go days without experiencing strong winds.  One solution is to build turbines at higher altitudes land areas.

Another decidedly more novel idea is to ditch the ground altogether and attach windmills to airships or kites.  Makani Power is already receiving funding from Google to float kites into the jet stream in an attempt to harness its power.  Now another company is looking to deploy a massive tethered blimp, which will continuous turn in the wind, generating power.  While such a device may sound like fodder for a science fiction novel, it's precisely what Magenn Power is looking to market.  The Canadian startup is looking to take wind power to the air in a big way.

The culmination of its work is the Magenn Air Rotor System (MARS) prototype.  This massive helium filled blimp looks like a giant sausage with "riverboat blades" as Pierre Rivard CEO of Magenn Power states.  The airship is ground tethered, and the blades catch the wind, turning it on a horizontal axis and generating power.

Magenn Power is currently testing the finished prototype at the TCOM flight-test facility in North Carolina.  The center, “the Mecca of big airships" according to Rivard, has seen little use since World War II.  But it's the only facility large enough to conduct an indoor test of the massive MARS prototype.

The company aims to deploy its finished products at a height of around 600 to 1,000 feet, significantly increasing the amount of wind it receives.  Magenn claims a fully commercialized version will produce anywhere from 10 kW to several megawatts, depending on the model.

Rivard says, Magenn's design is making history.  He states, "This is a world’s first, there has never been a rotating airship test done before."

A seasoned veteran of the fuel cell industry, Rivard left fuel-cell developer Hydrogenics to join Magenn in August, excited by the company's big dreams.  And he can't contain his enthusiasm for the device.  As the MARS prototype inflates, he enthuses, "As I talk to you, this whole envelope in the past 20 minutes has formed.  It’s almost totally formed now, like the birth of a new child."

While Rivard revels in seeing his work in action, he also has been hard at work raising funding for the startup.  Last year he secured $5M USD in funding from California-based Quercus Trust.  The Quercus Trust is an alternative energy investment firm founded by mathematician-turned-philanthropist David Gelbaum.  It invested heavily in other promising startups, including solar-hydrogen producer Nanoptek and algae-to-biofuel LiveFuels.

This year Rivard and Magenn hope to secure even larger funding, in preparation for commercialization.  After testing at TCOM, they look to showcase the prototype in an outdoor test, which they hope will raise $12M USD in funding.  Rivard states, "We would like to bring in customers and investors who have already expressed an interest in seeing it."

After the initial demo, Magenn plans to offer four more unique demos.  One will be an industrial site, such as a mine, and the blimp will replace the power generation of the diesel used in the plant.  Other sites will be a Caribbean island, a farm and a national park.

Rivard's initial system will be pricier than traditional wind turbines, but should produce more power.  He states, "With a conventional turbine, you typically have a utilization ratio of 20 to 25 percent, but with us, because we go higher, you have more constant and stronger winds, so the utilization ratio is more like 50 percent."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
BAM!
By TimberJon on 5/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: BAM!
By spluurfg on 5/6/2008 11:40:48 AM , Rating: 1
2-3 rounds from a light AA gun fired at a nuclear power plant or oil refinery would probably do a lot of damage too. Plus people might die.


RE: BAM!
By masher2 (blog) on 5/6/2008 11:51:06 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, tests have been done of a fully-loaded fighter jet impacting at 600+ mph the concrete containment structure of a reactor. No significant damage was noted.
A light AA gun wouldn't even scratch the surface.

In any case, the real barrier to such wind-based solutions isn't their fragility. It's the tremendously high per-kWh cost of energy generated with such approaches. Furthermore, I rather doubt this will ever scale up to the multi-megawatt range...the weight of a feeder cable capable of carrying that much amperage would, I think be prohibitive in itself.


RE: BAM!
By spluurfg on 5/6/2008 1:59:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In any case, the real barrier to such wind-based solutions isn't their fragility.


That was my point... that economics should be the main consideration, not succeptibility to anti aircraft fire


RE: BAM!
By afkrotch on 5/6/2008 3:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, tests have been done of a fully-loaded fighter jet impacting at 600+ mph the concrete containment structure of a reactor. No significant damage was noted.
A light AA gun wouldn't even scratch the surface.


You mean a fighter jet slamming into an untethered concrete block at around 450 mph.

I still don't see a light AA doing much of anything to a reactor, but it sure would put a dent into a regular power station. That or drive a semi through a photovoltaic power station, but I don't think the US Airforce would like it too much if you decided to drive through their's at Nellis.


RE: BAM!
By KillerNoodle on 5/7/2008 1:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
New Tech will allow it to scale.

Also depending on how the power is actually transmitted the wires might not need to be extremely thick. They will just need to make the output a very high voltage. Doing so will reduce the loss due to resistance and the current in the wire.


RE: BAM!
By spluurfg on 5/8/2008 4:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well I think the idea is probably not to scale these to large outputs individually, but create a farm of them -- akin to floating windmill farms.


RE: BAM!
By Integral9 on 5/6/2008 1:39:20 PM , Rating: 5
Not as many people out there in the country with light AA guns as there are people out there in the country with high powered hunting riffles. And 1000 ft is well within their range. 1 bullet may not take it down. But a platoon of hillbillies and a few cases of beer will.


RE: BAM!
By jlips6 on 5/6/2008 5:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
platoon of hillbillies. That made my day


interesting
By kattanna on 5/6/2008 11:51:09 AM , Rating: 5
i also wonder if they have thought about possibly adding cell phone service to them. at 600 to 1000 feet up, they would provide excellent coverage for an area, even if remote.




RE: interesting
By OxBow on 5/6/2008 12:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
That would be cool. As floating antenae for Cell phones, WiMax service, etc. these could do double or triple duty. Especially if they were deployed into rural areas not well served with this in the first place.


RE: interesting
By afkrotch on 5/6/2008 3:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
Also adding weight to them and possibly negating it's power generating abilities. But that's less power being used on other cell phone towers.


RE: interesting
By teflon billy on 5/7/2008 7:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
Would solve broadband access problems on some of the islands Off the coast of British Columbia. My dad has been working with providers to get towers up to cover the island he lives on but the island is to mountainous. But fly a few of these along the island and put the signal through them and your in business. Well hopefully. It sounds like a really good idea. I would only worry about helium leak. What would it cost for maintaining something like this?


Bad news for the environment
By BBeltrami on 5/6/2008 12:25:51 PM , Rating: 4
This is horrible. No one is even giving the slightest thought to how spreading a bunch of these things around could impact our planet by infecting our skies. The jet stream and natural wind patterns should not have to brook man's interference! What about the Precautionary Principle? What about the butterfly effect? Can't anyone see we're destroying everything?!

Damn you! OH, Damn you all to hell!!!1!!




RE: Bad news for the environment
By AlvinCool on 5/6/2008 12:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
HEY lets put flashing LED signs on them and they would be self powered. And we could change them through the WIFI interface!


RE: Bad news for the environment
By Spuke on 5/6/2008 5:11:23 PM , Rating: 1
I would have it rotate "Bad Muthafucka" in several different languages.


By snownpaint on 5/6/2008 6:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
You could have it fly over the Super bowl, and cover it with Ads.. That would raise funds for it..

How about smaller ones that could be flown at expos. It would to draw attention and generate little bit of electricity, which could be used to light up the inside during the night.. Of course cover that with Ads as well. We're in America, right?


RE: Bad news for the environment
By MRwizard on 5/8/2008 12:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
I will have to agree with you, yet disagree at the same time. This process of harnessing electricity is clean. something that i will vote for instead of burning fossil fuels or such


By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 5/6/2008 10:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
in the hail of anti-aircraft and conventional firearms fire, but what happens when a bad storm rolls through? Would they pull the balloons down with the tethers? I imagine light storms probably wouldn't be a problem, but you get hail, heavy electrical activity (probably some lightning rod system for that, hell, capture it and use it), very high winds...




Uhh....
By FITCamaro on 5/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Uhh....
By FITCamaro on 5/6/2008 10:59:19 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry. Also, I'm not opposed to wind power, just while this seems like a good idea, I have questions about its feasibility. I mean where are you gonna put these things? And if you think our power grid is vulnerable now, how vulnerable is it gonna be when anyone with a high power rifle can take aim and shoot at our giant balloon power plants?


RE: Uhh....
By 306maxi on 5/6/2008 11:06:14 AM , Rating: 3
It's not going to be made up of one single pocket. I'm sure it will have chambers inside. If it had only a single chamber it wouldn't be able to support th quipment inside. It will also be high enough not to be vulenerable to rifle fire.


RE: Uhh....
By Adonlude on 5/6/2008 12:13:24 PM , Rating: 4
600 to 1000 feet is definately within the range of rifle fire. 1000 METER competitions are common for powerful rifles and that is just their accurate range, they can potentially punch holes in large targets much further out.

Rifles probably aren't a serious concern though as the shooter would just get arrested and life would go on. It would probably take many shots as well.


RE: Uhh....
By 306maxi on 5/6/2008 12:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
You try shooting that far UP into the sky though.


RE: Uhh....
By Spuke on 5/6/2008 1:35:50 PM , Rating: 4
He's not talking about Joe bonehead with his deer rifle. There ARE rifles AND people capable of shooting that far.


RE: Uhh....
By paydirt on 5/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Uhh....
By afkrotch on 5/6/2008 2:11:52 PM , Rating: 5
Why the hell do ppl keep coming up with ludicrious ideas? It'd be just as easy to simply chainsaw away at electrical poles and take out power. That or use a .50 cal rifle and shoot out tranformer plants or current wind mills.

There's so many ways to take out power now, yet you don't see it happen much or at all, do you? I have yet to read about a power plant, wind mill, transformer, etc getting taken out by retards or terrorists. It's usually some type of storm causing a tree to fall on electrical lines or a drunk driving into a electrical pole.


RE: Uhh....
By Lightning III on 5/6/2008 2:30:24 PM , Rating: 3

We had a tard take out a power substation trying to steal copper wire, I say Tard because he didn't survive the attempt.


RE: Uhh....
By bdewong on 5/6/2008 2:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
Those are my favorite type of copper thieves.


RE: Uhh....
By Adonlude on 5/7/2008 4:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Who the hell takes that kind of risk to steal spools of pennies? Apparently someone dumb enough to get killed in the process :-)


RE: Uhh....
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 8:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
A transformer is easily replaced and can be routed around. And you have fun trying to use a chainsaw on an electrical cable. Tell me how far you get assuming you survive.

A few bullets though could take these things down and there goes the power generator, not distributor.


RE: Uhh....
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 8:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
You have yet to read about it. So we should wait until we do hear about it before we think about it? Yeah thats worked out real well in the past.

I guess we should just pull armed guards out of power plants then because hey, there haven't been any attacks yet so why spend the money on the guards.


RE: Uhh....
By masher2 (blog) on 5/6/2008 2:21:25 PM , Rating: 1
> "You try shooting that far UP into the sky though. "

To reach 1000 ft (333m) meters straight up would require a muzzle velocity of only 82 m/s. Many high-powered rifles can break 1,000 m/s.

Of course, this is a bit misleading, as it ignores air resistance...and you don't want to reach the target with zero velocity either. However, most rifles would still reach the target with enough energy to impart damage.


RE: Uhh....
By Magnus Dredd on 5/6/2008 4:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
#1 - I can hit a deer at 300 yards easily enough with a decent rifle, something that big would be a joke (even at 400 yards).

#2 - At 100 feet I've seen a Remington .243 punch through 2 1/2 inch thick pieces of plate steel AND the block wall behind them. Balloons are generally made of less puncture resistant material than steel. (This was in a rifle range, the bullet hit where the backstop plates overlapped)

#3 - You're telling me that they'll be able to figure out who shot one of these things when the police cannot figure out who any of those firing guns into the air on New Years Eve are???? Where I live there's literally dozens of people shooting into the air on New Years and Cinco de Mayo and many other holdays, and damned near none of them are ever caught.

----

The DailyTech article are intelligent, moderately detailed, and concise.

The comments... I gotta stop reading the comments... Seriously...


RE: Uhh....
By teflon billy on 5/7/2008 7:23:35 AM , Rating: 3
why the focus on guns? Seriously? do you really think all of a sudden people will start shooting at anything floating in the air? These things will be fine. I think the larger problem will be maintenance initially. Does anybody know what the helium leak rate is like on balloons like this??


RE: Uhh....
By arsmitty86 on 5/7/2008 9:00:37 AM , Rating: 1
Thank you for having some knowledge on the subject... I am seriously irritated at the sheer ignorance above and misconceptions that 1000 Feet would be a hard shot or the bullet wouldn't have the velocity to penetrate at a distance. To put things into perspective for the people who seem to think this is unfeasable

1. 1000 feet is a joke. A .22 cal Magnum is still dangerous up to 2 miles (not accurate given but...) thats 10560 feet. A 22 magnum is accurate up to roughly 200 yards... To hit a target that size at barley over 300 yards is a joke... even with a small caliber like the .22. Take into account the number of people using .17 hmr (accurate to 350 yards or better) or the very common 30-30, 30.06 7mm Rem Mag. Most hunters have something this size in their closet at the very least a 22-250, or 220 swift etc etc etc... 1000 feet is a joke for anything worth hunting with.
2. There are people out there that shouldn't have guns that do and DO get liquored up and shoot at things they shouldn't. And this device is a prime target as its in the air and large, and an easy shot.

Not trying to be a know it all but the fact is any moron with $200 and a clean criminal record could get a rifle and plenty of ammo to take this out...

Besides that I like the idea...

*Waits to get rated down.


RE: Uhh....
By Carter642 on 5/8/2008 10:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
Just by eye balling it I'd put this thing at 70ft long by 30ft in dia. That puts it's volume at 50,000 cu/ft or so.

Lets put the biggest redneck rounds at a 30-06 giving us two generous 8mm holes in the thing. So a total of 100mm^2. Even with a platoon of hillbillies shooting it one of these things could take weeks to lose enough volume to come down with 200 holes in it.

The british had problems during the early zepplin raids because no matter how much machine gun fire they put into the airships the area of the holes wasn't enough to affect that large of a volume.


RE: Uhh....
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/6/2008 11:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
HAHA sorry the bird thing was funny. I don't think that's a real concern though...

600-1000 feet is pretty high up for most small birds. I think its kinda ridiculous to assume that hawks, seagulls or other larger birds could possibly rip off a tough fabric or that they would want to. Most nesting birds are small birds that gather their materials at tree level. And hawks do so as well. It just doesn't make sense for a bird to carry something heavy (nesting materials) at high altitudes, birds have to ride thermals just to get up to these altitudes, they don't have a lot of flying/lifting power up there per say.

I think you raise a valid point on the terror problems though. I'd imagine you could reinforce the underside with a teflon coat or something, though that'd raise the price. It wouldn't be terribly hard to patch/reinflate these things, as well. Seems like any terror threat would be pretty short lived and the 10 guys or so would be in jail and the balloons would be back up in hours.


RE: Uhh....
By ikkeman on 5/6/2008 12:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
What do you think is more terror-proof? A hundred of these things spaced out along a coast, or a single nuclear power plant or dam???

Also. I think even birds will be smart enough not to try nesting on this thing. If I understand the concept correctly, the thing will be spinning quite enthousiasticly...


RE: Uhh....
By afkrotch on 5/6/2008 2:13:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
think you raise a valid point on the terror problems though. I'd imagine you could reinforce the underside with a teflon coat or something, though that'd raise the price.


The thing is suppose to spin. Doubt there is such a thing as an underside on it.


RE: Uhh....
By Lightning III on 5/6/2008 2:27:53 PM , Rating: 4

Surely you mean Kevlar fabric not teflon, although teflon would keep the bird shit off if it was spinning.


RE: Uhh....
By spluurfg on 5/6/2008 11:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
People can drive trucks into cell phone towers if they want. Sure, crazy people can go shoot these things up, but at least they won't be killing anybody. Besides, presumably knocking out a few of these wouldn't seriously cripple generating capacity.


RE: Uhh....
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 8:36:27 AM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily. If something like this was shot and fell out of the sky, depending on its location, it could easily fall on a building and seriously damage it and hurt people. It just depends where they plan to deploy them. If one was deployed on an island, it could easily fall on the local populace.

And you can drive your truck into your local cell phone tower all you want. You'll destroy the truck before you hurt the tower considering its made of steel beams and there isn't much of anything on the ground to destroy short of the power cables maybe or the building which controls it. And I hardly think people losing cell phone reception compares to them losing power.


RE: Uhh....
By Doormat on 5/6/2008 12:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on the rifle thing, I know Boeing has a problem when they move their 737 overland on the rails, with ignorant rednecks taking potshots at their fuselage sections as they are transported between Wichita, KS and Renton, WA.

I suppose the question is what is the speed the bullet needs to travel out of the barrel to reach the target 1000' in the air with enough force to penetrate.


RE: Uhh....
By AlvinCool on 5/6/2008 12:30:31 PM , Rating: 1
To put that at rest lets just say an off the shelf .50 caliber barret single shot can shoot a piece of lead the weight of a brick 1800 meters and hit a dime with no wind.


RE: Uhh....
By JustTom on 5/6/2008 1:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To put that at rest lets just say an off the shelf .50 caliber barret single shot can shoot a piece of lead the weight of a brick 1800 meters and hit a dime with no wind.
quote:
50 caliber barret single shot can shoot a piece of lead the weight of a brick


Um, no. A .50 caliber bullet weighs in at about .43 kg,or a little less than a pound. A typical red clay brick on the other hand weighs from 4-6 pounds.

A shot hitting a dime from 1800 meters is certainly possible, however even considering a zero wind situation the odds of making a shot like that approach zero. The drop on a shot that long would be measured in the tens of feet. The tiniest movement of the barrel at such extreme ranges would result in enormous change in where the bullet ends up.


RE: Uhh....
By fic2 on 5/6/2008 1:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
I call bullsh*t on hitting a dime from over a mile away. At a mile you start having to take the earth's rotation into effect, not to mention gravity, temperature, etc.

Normal shooting you are arcing the projectile. Shooting at something 1000 ft in the air you are going to have to be taking into account wind shifts, higher wind velocity, and gravity is 100% against you. Shooting an object straight up 1000 ft isn't impossible, but not many people would be able to do it consistently.


RE: Uhh....
By AlvinCool on 5/6/2008 2:08:47 PM , Rating: 1
Ok so I use the cheap bricks. Actually I made an error in converting the weight of the entire bullet and also thinking the bullet was weighed in grams but it's actually in grains. I apologize for my mis-calculation.

However I do say and can prove that indeed you can hit a dime, well a silver dollar, at 1 mile with no wind. That shot I am refering to was made in Vietnam at 1.3 miles, 2,250 meters, and was set by US Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam in 1967. I read the book on this guy and he was sitting directly next to one of the dial in markers they used for distance. The shot was made with a .50 cal machine gun firing single shots and using an 8 power light gathering high optic scope. It was noted in the book that he could indeed group shots at that range. Ok so a dime is a little small but a silver dollar is impressive!


RE: Uhh....
By afkrotch on 5/6/2008 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However I do say and can prove that indeed you can hit a dime, well a silver dollar, at 1 mile with no wind. That shot I am refering to was made in Vietnam at 1.3 miles, 2,250 meters, and was set by US Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam in 1967.


All you can prove is that Carlos Hathcock killed a person using a .50 cal M2 machine gun at 2,286m. He sure as hell didn't shoot a silver dollar.

Shooting a person vs shooting a silver dollar. World of difference.


RE: Uhh....
By AlvinCool on 5/6/2008 3:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All you can prove is that Carlos Hathcock killed a person using a .50 cal M2 machine gun at 2,286m. He sure as hell didn't shoot a silver dollar.


Actually I can. He has another confirmed shot with the same M2 machine gun shooting single shots. He shot the front hub out of a moving bicycle at 2500 yards. The kid, after being sprawled from the bike, jumped up and fired shots with an AK-47 at which time he put one in his chest. He had been ordered to shoot the kid on the bike by his shave tail but refused and shot the front hub out of the bike to see the persons reaction. If he had not come up with a gun he was not going to shoot him. Thats not just shooting a silver dollar, it'a s moving silver dollar. The guy was a snipers sniper


RE: Uhh....
By JustTom on 5/7/2008 1:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
I read his book, good read. However you are taking an example from the extreme range of capabilities. How many people are able to make shots?


RE: Uhh....
By AlvinCool on 5/7/2008 8:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I agree totally. I doubt there are more than a few hundred people in the world that can make a shot like that. But they might all hate flying generators with LED signs and WIFI! You gotta admit the guy was a phenomonal shooter


RE: Uhh....
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 8:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
Well I think hitting a massive balloon in the sky at only 330 yards(~1000 feet) is within the ability of most people who have a high power rifle with a scope and can see.


RE: Uhh....
By Misty Dingos on 5/6/2008 2:13:49 PM , Rating: 5
OK because I am nice I will help you out because you are terribly misinformed.

Average weight of a brick. 5 pounds (a little over 2 kgs)
Weight of a .50 cal BMG ball round. 662 grains or 1.45 oz. (just over 41 grams) Al 1.45 oz not nearly the same as 5 pound brick. Accurate statements lend credibility to your argument. Please keep that in mind.

OK now that we have established that the bullets used in the .50 don't weigh the same as a brick, lets see about that 1800 meters or 1968.5 yards.

Longest confirmed kill with a .50 rifle. (that folks talk about) 2,430 meters or 2,657 yards a little over a mile and a half. Al that is much farther than a sad 1800 meters. Again let's try to be more accurate in the future.

But that is not shooting things in the air. That is shooting things on the ground.

Maximum altitude for the .50 BMG to shoot is 15,000 feet or 4572 meters but the effective altitude is only 5000 feet or 1524 meters.

Would these blimp power stations be vulnerable to small arms ground fire, yes. Would these blimp power stations be vulnerable to weather, yes. Which would be of greater danger? The weather.

Alright Al I know you were all fired up to post and the emotions of that got the better of you but try harder to make a credible argument next time.

So who needs help next?


RE: Uhh....
By Creig on 5/6/2008 11:13:07 AM , Rating: 4
What about idiots with rifles taking potshots at it? Or if it breaks loose and drifts into commercial airline traffic routes? Or gets hit by lightning during a rainstorm? Or adjacent landowners who object to having this thing hovering over their property even though it might be anchored to its owners property? Or...

I can see all sorts of things that can potentially go wrong with this concept.


RE: Uhh....
By spluurfg on 5/6/2008 11:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What about idiots with rifles taking potshots at it? Or if it breaks loose and drifts into commercial airline traffic routes? Or gets hit by lightning during a rainstorm? Or adjacent landowners who object to having this thing hovering over their property even though it might be anchored to its owners property? Or...


People can shoot up power plants at the moment... at least if you shoot a balloon nobody gets killed. Drifting loose into airline traffic roots I am not sure -- I would hope that it's not bouyant enough to float from 1000 feet to 36,000 feet without requiring a lot of energy. I'm sure one could design a failsave where if it became untethered it would trigger a controlled deflation. But I guess you would probably not want to put these near airports.

As for property owners, I doubt this is any more intrusive than windmill farms, which are typically already placed in relatively remote areas.

quote:
I can see all sorts of things that can potentially go wrong with this concept.


Things could go wrong with anything, but personally I think the concept seems within the region of sanity.


RE: Uhh....
By zshift on 5/6/2008 12:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or gets hit by lightning during a rainstorm?


this can only happen if there is a large enough difference in electric potential between the clouds and the ballon. so long as the balloon is tethered and poperly grounded there should be no problem with lightning. if there is, all they have to do is attach a lightning rod to it the same way they attach lightning rods to buildings and there should be no problem.

We can say what if... over and over again, but we really won't know how efficient or well it works until it's actually been tested and been in use for a while, the same as with any other technology ever invented.


RE: Uhh....
By Aarnando on 5/6/2008 12:40:47 PM , Rating: 4
Do you normally worry this much? I'd tell you to go smoke a joint to relax, but it sounds like you've already smoked too much and become overly paranoid.

-Aarnando


RE: Uhh....
By StormEffect on 5/6/2008 11:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
At the theoretical altitude and windspeed this thing should be sitting at, it would probably be hard for a bird to land and get a good hunk out of it.

And as someone said, add enough altitude and a rifle shot becomes irrelevant. What you should worry about a rockets and fighter planes.

Hey, it looks cool and reminds me of science fiction. Keep it up!


RE: Uhh....
By AlvinCool on 5/6/2008 11:28:00 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt they could raise it to an altitude high enough, and provide a cable to bring the power down, to keep someone from hitting it if they wanted to. Sure you might not have issues with a standard hunting rifle like a deer hunter would use but yes you can buy a rifle off the shelf that would not just punch a hole in it but in the correct spot to stop it from generating at the altitudes they will need to operate in.


RE: Uhh....
By AlvinCool on 5/6/2008 11:17:38 AM , Rating: 3
The outer shell is what rotates thus if a bird were to want to roost on this, he better be running like a lumberjack on fire. I'm wondering how they plan on getting all the power back down to the ground. A cable like that has to be heavy.

As for shooting down the generators you are way to paranoid. Frankly anyone can shoot holes all in our oil pipelines and it isn't happening. There they are big stationary targets and anyone can shoot holes right in them. Nothing


RE: Uhh....
By bobsmith1492 on 5/6/2008 11:29:38 AM , Rating: 3
You can bump the voltage up extremely high on-board before sending it down so that the current required is very low and the cables can be relatively thin. Assuming these need 3 cables to tether (in a big triangle arrangement) you could do three-phase AC with one down each line. Not sure about a neutral, though... or lightning strikes.

These do sound like a great idea. They're going to have to stay out of airline traffic routes, though!


RE: Uhh....
By afkrotch on 5/6/2008 2:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
Why not just try and harness the power of lightning too. Bonus!

^-^


RE: Uhh....
By FranksAndBeans on 5/6/2008 4:19:41 PM , Rating: 1
1.21 gigawatts is a hellava lot more than a few megawatts.

Harnessing lightning is their series 2 improvement.


RE: Uhh....
By spluurfg on 5/6/2008 11:33:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So what happens when you get a bunch of birds roosting and pecking at this thing?


If I were a bird I wouldn't roost on something that was rotating.


RE: Uhh....
By Magnus Dredd on 5/6/2008 3:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
How the hell are birds supposed to build a nest on something that's spinning like a wheel?

They must be really amazing birds.

---

For those of you that lack reading comprehension: The whole inflated portion of the device spins like a tire, with the axle being the part that is attached to the lines which keep it from flying away.


RE: Uhh....
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 8:32:08 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry I did not know the entire exposed exterior was rotating. From the pictures it looked like just the center area rotated.


RE: Uhh....
By snownpaint on 5/6/2008 6:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
How About We Stick Our Heads IN The Sand And Give Up!!!!

Some of these remarks..OMG
We would be in the stone age if people with ideas actually listened to this rambling.. "What if: a bird poo'd on it, used it as a nest, a redneck shot at it, a plan crashed into it, a man ran up and cut the tether with a knife, I farted and the wind changed direction when I scared the butterfly.."

This is the best "simplistic" idea to wind power I've heard of.. Cheap, and easy to repair or replace. The idea is such a good idea, that a guy that worked at a Fuel Cell company left to work on this project.. It tells me where the money and feasibility is..
We have the technology today to make it happen tomorrow.

There are 100s of planes that fly over a house a year. How would this blimp fit into the effects on you? NONE.. at that distance and the size they are suggesting it would be eclipsed by three fingers at arms length.

In comparison to the oil, coal, other wind tech., nuclear, geothermal, and tidal.. This tops on ease, lowest initial cost and speed to implement out of that group..


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki