Future Developments In Wind Energy Over The Next 100 Years
Mar 27, 2019 —
A new idea for Wind Turbines
27 March 2019, firstname.lastname@example.org
A thunderstorm cloud is the optimal wind turbine, directly creating electrical current without need for a planted windmill. That's where renewable wind energy will ultimately lead--thunderstorms-in-a-box, so to speak, but before we're there, we've got leagues to go.
Two new additions in my life intrigued me with a conversation about Wind Turbines over dinner.
Michel, the more handsome and clearly more scholarly gentleman on the left, is finishing up a Master's in Astrophysics. He's particularly interested in plotting global wind patterns to determine suitable, or best, locations for wind turbines.
A thought crossed my mind, "If the purpose of the wind turbine is to gain energy from wind, why spend time studying the optimal location of wind without also studying best methods to make wind?"
The idea seemed new.
"Think of it like this: a battery holds current across a potential (voltage is that potential). Michel is studying the optimal place to put a battery inside a computer. You would be making a whole new, more efficient, battery that doesn't worry about where it is in the box."
Logically, the first company able to make wind could be dubbed King, or grandfather, of the new renewable wind-energy market. We're not talking about harnessing the wind; we're talking about making wind according to the needs of the devices we use to convert wind into electricity.
That beckons the question of whether or not our current wind turbines are actually a best, or sustainable, practice for renewable energy from wind. I suspect they're not. In fact, I'm pretty sure the current wind turbines are dinosaurs compared with what's possible in futures to come (all futures exist, one is always best for all). Case in point, consider Wind, the power of the raw stuff.
Consider the song, "London Bridge is falling down."
Did you know there actually was a London Bridge, and that it really fell down? No, the builders didn't forget anything. They simply weren't aware of the power of wind. Ok, maybe that doesn't apply to the story of London Bridge, or maybe it does, but it does apply to The Tacoma Bridge which collapsed on 7 Nov 1940 in Washington State, and what I really need is just one vivid example of real-life destruction caused by wind over a bridge: (.pdf) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lPSIcvJihprMl3hoaUSuQN1C2GlL4zqu/view?usp=sharing
The point is, the bridge broke because the wind blowing over the bridge happened to hit the natural frequency of the bridge.
Natural frequency, for those of us new to the idea, is a natural shaking, or rhythm, of a thing at an appropriate environmental level. There are actually multiple natural frequencies with objects, most simply out of the respective spectral awareness of the other.
Everything has motion. If we blow across the top of our hand, the elections inside our blood aren't going to be affected, but that doesn't mean that both the cells of our blood and the molecules of Nitrogen dioxide (the "mostly air" stuff) don't have their own individual frequencies that really are affected by, and affecting, life around them.
Consider a regular pane of glass in a smaller example of harmonic natural frequency affect.
Glass has a natural frequency. A perfectly pitched opera singer hitting the note corresponding to a harmonic multiple of the natural frequency of the elemental bonding frequency of glass is able to shatter glass with mere sound produced by a human throat. That's what natural frequency resonance does. (The opposite of it would be the nodes that are used to suspend water droplets in midair... there is no amplification in the "dead zone", and a clear defiance of modern concepts for gravity without association to the same sound electrical principles governing wind).
When an object meets another at the natural frequency, at the same frequency (or a harmonic multiple), the two frequencies have a mutually complementary affect. Think of the oddly appropriate mental comparisons: "two minds thinking alike become one"; "like propels"; and "atune thyself unto the greater shared mind for inspiration therefrom to achieve that thou wilst most consistently"… sort of like two hoodlums scheming to take over the world, one edging the other on and vice versa, until both are in a world of hurt for a classical doomsday nightmare.
Clearly the wind over the 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge didn't give a rat's ass about the bridge, nor the bridge aware of what the sneaky wind had in store. Yet the two colluded and disaster occurred.
Disaster only occurred because the structural capacity of the large-scale molecular forces was exceeded. It is wholey possible to build a mechanical switch to shut down the perpetual energy device before structural stresses reach the safety-max, in the case of wind turbines built to harness currently unconsidered (currently negatively considered) energy.
With a mechanical safety switch, or the like if you will, it is wholey possible to build a wind turbine, a variable speed, variable pitch wind turbine, able to self-adjust its innately dynamic natural frequency to the relatively constant environmental wind speed. A secondary mechanical switch, not just digital but mechanical safety device, can be set to turn off, or un-harmonize, the reverberations at some critical value.
This will result in a wind turbine that is isn't statically dynamic (i.e. not just adjusting itself to the speed of the wind), but a dynamic speed-oscillating device able, also, actually, to generate an electromagnetic field for tertiary (even more) yet unconsidered energy revenue. Think of it like this: first there were wind turbines that were constant speed. Then there were wind turbines that were able to change their speed to accommodate the speed of the wind (because it's not actually the wind that turns the wind turbine, but the low pressure the wind over the turbine blades creates to suck the blades--and if that's not how they currently work, they should. Eighty percent of an airplane's lift comes not from the engine that pulls the plane, but the low pressure above the wings produced by the angle and speed of the wind over the wings).
The logical next step is a wind turbine that talks back to the wind. In other words, a pumping, or oscillating action (on a large scale, not actual short-duration but longer duration increases and then relatively rapid decrease after the mechanic safety limit is reached). Logically, the higher speed, nearer the mechanic safety limit, produces relatively exponential power generation in comparison to the lower speed, or average constant speed of current variable-speed designs.
Nearing the mechanical safety switch limit, the propellers, or turbines, would begin to shake more and more as the natural frequency is met and held.
Common sense dictates a shaking turbine is clearly disruptive to smooth (constant) energy conversation (wind to electric) but that's the whole point. The "common" thinking isn't ideal. The most energy-laden, energy-rich resources aren't the safest. We just haven't considered how to harness a rapid explosion of energy in any productive way, yet. Wind turbines don't accompany a bomb-like bang, since the natural frequency is allowed to reverberate under control of, at the very least, a mechanical reset back to the lower range, until it builds to the reset yet again, and again, and again (that "pumping-like" action).
The idea is to build a containment box for chaos, and then to harness the chaos. An ounce of chaos provides infinitely more energy than a constant supply of order, according to the anti-thesis of common, which from every eternally limitless perspective is as equally valid in any relative reality (where we currently are), which in turn allows us to use chaos resourcefully as any currently prevailing common sense would use only order (we're only up-scaling the known into an area previously unrecognized, yet equally valid, with more potential, for greater gain, until finally we realize that freely sustainable energy is actually fully possible).
So, how can the random shakes of a wind turbine possibly be harnessed?
For that there is this thing called a piezoelectric property. You might not have heard about that one, but you've probably been around it almost every day of your life so far.
Ever look at a cheap wall clock and wonder how it ticks?
Well, if it's got a battery, there's a little electric pulse that zaps a little sliver of quartz (SiO2).
The piezoelectric property of quartz (crystallized SiO2) makes it shake at exactly the same frequency, and the shaking gets turned into the actual ticks of the second, minute, and hour hand on a watch or clock. The quartz clock uses a heck of a lot less moving parts than now-old wind-up watches, which is why "Quartz" became so popular to see on all different makes of watches in the first place, and, on the whole, they actually keep time better.
So maybe pad the base of the wind turbine, or the rubbery socket holding the shaking central part (the hub of the thing that absorbs cross-wind vibrations anyway) with one of the few elements able to convert that shaking into electricity?
Heck, even solar panels now use the piezoelectric property, or should, given the heating effect of sunshine causes the boxed-in materials of solar panels to expand, yielding an increase to physical pressure, which can be converted into electrical energy according to the piezoelectric property.
But the idea to make a harmonic, Natural Frequency Harnessing (NFH) (that's possibly a newly coined phrase) wind turbine as the next, or a subsequent mid-point, evolution to the wind turbines that were first built in 1939 (according to wikipedia) is still less than the idea to simply make wind. Reference 27 March 2019 Wiki blurb for history of wind turbines: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uW2A72PoZ2LXjz7asHeaLTXvnqU6B9LK/view?usp=sharing
Wind as electricity, directly?
Wind is, fundamentally, the expression of moving an energized, or energetic, substance (air) across a potential (high-low pressure difference). In that regard, wind works in the exact same way as normal electric current.
It is completely possible to apply the laws of electricity into the area of wind energy for the creation (making) of parallel wind circuits, or even, in the future, alternating current parallel sequenced wind circuits, not unlike parallel electric currents afford practically limitless use of electricity when compared to their dinosaur-aged series-only DC (direct current) counter parts.
Using Bernoulli's principle (the one that allows a gentle summer breeze knock over heavy garbage cans in narrow alley ways), and building wind conduits with resonant sound boards able to harness sound (physical) vibrations direction into other mediums not yet explored for renewable energy potential, suffices to "make wind" as a new advancement in wind energy. The necessary potential difference can be made with ambient temperature, geothermal devices, solar energy, existing wind energy, or directly with sound (if you'll believe it!).
Wind energy and electrical energy are governed by the exact same process. We understand electricity a lot better than wind. We can apply laws for electricity (voltage potential = current * resistance) directly to wind, and add laws for manipulating multiple circuits to optimize the whole: the series/parallel and dc/ac aspects of electricity directly apply to wind as a current.
Does all this make sense?
Anyway, while listening to Michel describe the topic of his Master's thesis, and asking him if he'd ever simply thought about making wind, I had an interesting picture of The Great Pyramids in Egypt flash in mind. Apparently the pyramids incorporated resonance chambers using wooden boards in slats and slots on the ground (the boards long rotted or burned). Recall that Egypt, when the pyramids were built about 13,000 years ago, was actually a temperate climate with lush forests for the wood.
About the pyramids being 13000 years old: a geology professor at the University Of Waterloo pointed out to his Earth Science students the fall semester of 1995 that the erosion damage on the Sphinx was caused by water, which implies heavy rain, and that the last time there was significant rainfall in Egypt was about 8000 years ago--so don't believe any government that tries to teach your kids that the pyramids are only 5000 years old! Edgar Cayce (1877-1945) in Cayce On Atlantis (by Edgar Evans Cayce, Cayce's son) dates them to 11,000 BC. Seth, as Jane Roberts, later added that they were built using sound, reference this good read: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VCjEIf11FiM50w-6_lWuY4SqceSeMw2R/view?usp=sharing
There is another author who's studied pyramids as energy devices incorporating resonant chambers. I don't recall the name, but the information is out there.
In conclusion, we CAN make a free energy device using wind energy, as a more--possibly most--efficient use of wind in the greater field of renewable wind energy sources. However, as Mark, the other smart fellow in the picture, pointed out, "Doesn't all wind energy come, ultimately, from the sun?" I had to agree, although, I did/do add:
If the source of the energy of the sun itself is considered, then the realization of free energy from any object in the room becomes a very real living, vivid, awareness and life itself somewhat unreal. Fundamentally, this reality is based on duality and that governs all frequency without a definite point of fixed origin.
27 March 2019
Keep fighting for people power!
Politicians and rich CEOs shouldn't make all the decisions. Today we ask you to help keep Change.org free and independent. Our job as a public benefit company is to help petitions like this one fight back and get heard. If everyone who saw this chipped in monthly we'd secure Change.org's future today. Help us hold the powerful to account. Can you spare a minute to become a member today?I'll power Change with $5 monthly