http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/ Engadget Comments for Maglev wind turbines 1000x more efficient than normal windmills http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
]]>Nov 26th 2007 3:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
But, we still need more nuclear plants.]]>Nov 26th 2007 3:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.nuwinfo.se/waste2007documentation

If they work right, these turbines should be a great boon. They don't require much land in their immediate vicinity, but also wouldn't benefit from being surrounded by high rises. I still like wind turbines and solar panels because they DO occupy vast tracks of land. Land that can be populated by a species other than humans.]]>Nov 26th 2007 3:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Let's hope that's a typo- though the original articles says the same. That or my understanding of watts is wrong.]]>Nov 26th 2007 4:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Ah, the beauty that is hard-water and pebble bed reactors. I will be happy when the world switches to hydrogen for transportation (NOT FUEL CELL, just hydrogen, which is safer than gasoline), and solar and nuclear for large-scale power generation. It will be a beautiful day.]]>Nov 26th 2007 5:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
You had me at "kaplooey".]]>Nov 26th 2007 6:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 6:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Wind, Solar and Fusion for the way (although the last one is not that efficient and powerfull (yet))

Have a nice day.]]>Nov 26th 2007 6:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
"Tidal generators can suck in fish."
"Wind can kill off birds (didn't it lead one species to extinction somewhere?) by sucking them in, and it can alter wind currents"
"Coal generators release really harmful crap into the environment, oh, and CO2."



A tidal generator sucks up a fish, so what? Planting Tall Trees Can Alter Wind Currents... Who gives a damn? Those fish regularly pass through the damn multiple times per day as part of their search for food. There is inconclusive proof that current CO2 levels have any effect on climate. CO2 makes up less than 0.0383% of the total gas in the atmosphere and man kind only contributes to .001% of that annually. The number one "warming gas" is water vapor (0.25%). Oxygen (20.946%) and Nitrogen (78.084%) are the two most common gases in the Earths atmosphere.

Utility transmission and distribution lines, the backbone of our electrical power system, are responsible for 130 to 174 million bird deaths a year

Collisions with automobiles and trucks result in the deaths of between 60 and 80 million birds annually

Tall building and residential house windows get in the way of wind and kill 100 million to 1 billion birds annually. Lets not even mention how many tall trees have killed birds.

Lighted communication towers kill 40-50 million per year. One case cites that 10,000 birds were killed by a communication tower in just one night alone.

Housecats kill 217,000,000 birds a year.

Commercial wind turbines-- Get this: Just 6,400 birds per year! Hell, KFC fries that many birds in less than one half hour!

Jessie, just remember that man was given dominion over the land and the animals. It's our given right to do what we like with them, for food, experimentation, transportation, work, and entertainment. Put down the dope, apparently its affected your logic.

http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg]]>Nov 27th 2007 1:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
"There is inconclusive proof that current CO2 levels have any effect on climate. CO2 makes up less than 0.0383% of the total gas in the atmosphere and man kind only contributes to 0.001% of that annually."

It's probably not worth the bother of replying to your post, but you really do need to do some more research if you are still swallowing the sort of tripe that you have trotted out above. Has it ever occurred to you that the people putting out such garbage might be plain wrong? I know that you WANT them to be right, but that isn't the same as them actually BEING right. If you look into the solid, detailed and thorough science behind all of this you wouldn't be quoting this sort of garbage any more. Go on, do your homework properly rather than just copying someone else's errors!]]>Nov 28th 2007 3:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Watching Al Gore and Michael Moore does not constitute homework...]]>Nov 28th 2007 8:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 3:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
the google windfarm.....]]>Nov 26th 2007 3:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/-moved to Mountain view because it was awesome.]]>Nov 28th 2007 3:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Ermm.. WADUFXUP?]]>Nov 26th 2007 3:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
I don't see what the cost of a factory has to do with the cost of the product outputted.]]>Nov 26th 2007 3:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 3:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 4:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 3:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 3:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 4:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 4:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 3:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 3:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Blocking out the sun isn't a bad idea---if you do it with solar cells!]]>Nov 26th 2007 3:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 3:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Now replace all your lighting with LED, rebuild a passive solar and geothermaly heated house, plus a few other things, and you'd drop your electricity need to 500-800KWh/month. That would mean a 5KW turbine would keep you off the grid.]]>Nov 26th 2007 4:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 4:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
I smell BS, and it kinda smells like vaporware. If its not, thats cool, just don't think about installing these near any beaches I go to, and good luck installing them near any houses over a million dollars near the water... ie the entire coast, I hear they have REALLY good lawyers.]]>Nov 26th 2007 3:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
You're giving engadget editors too much credit...like they know what a unit of power is. The article engadget ripped this off of has the numbers wrong too. The turbines supposedly produce 1~50 mW according to the BusinessWire post. Go poorly written articles!]]>Nov 26th 2007 3:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
mW = milliwatt
MW = megawatt

I think you mean MW.]]>Nov 26th 2007 4:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 4:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 5:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
That being said, I don't think that the maglev system is entirely about eliminating friction. That's part of it, but from my limited understanding of how maglev works, there is also a huge efficiency gain by the fact that it doesn't work like a traditional brush/bearing generator, so the EM resistance is far, far less than one of those. Now, obviously, a traditional generator is more than 0.1% efficient, so I don't think you can actually increase efficiency 1000 times without violating the first law of thermodynamics, but maybe they threw other variables into their 1000x equation. Maybe it's 3x more efficient, 11x less expensive, takes up 3x less land and can be produced 10x faster, so someone in the PR department decided that was 1000x better.]]>Nov 26th 2007 5:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
That being said, I don't think that the maglev system is entirely about eliminating friction. That's part of it, but from my limited understanding of how maglev works, there is also a huge efficiency gain by the fact that it doesn't work like a traditional brush/bearing generator, so the EM resistance is far, far less than one of those. Now, obviously, a traditional generator is more than 0.1% efficient, so I don't think you can actually increase efficiency 1000 times without violating the first law of thermodynamics, but maybe they threw other variables into their 1000x equation. Maybe it's 3x more efficient, 11x less expensive, takes up 3x less land and can be produced 10x faster, so someone in the PR department decided that was 1000x better.]]>Nov 26th 2007 5:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Well, the article does state that the purpose of the magnets is to reduce friction. From the sounds of it they're also talking about fairly simple permanent magnet levitation, the kind you find in a "discover magnetism" kit. I think the term "maglev" was just thrown in there to sound high-tech.

The thing about maglev train technology such as in the Transrapid, which is usually what is meant by maglev, is that there are actually two separate "magnetic" technologies involved: one for levitation, the other for propulsion. Neither makes use of permanent magnets, and they're both completely independent of each other (well, theoretically anyway, in reality shared use of certain components does occur). Levitation is achieved either by attracting the vehicle up to the guideway (such as in the Transrapid), or repelling it up from the guideway (such as in the Japanese maglev). The levitation itself doesn't propel the train in any shape or form, it merely provides a practically frictionless "surface" on which to glide. Propulsion is achieved through the use of linear motors which work very much like traditional motors, except the stator is unrolled into flat form and endlessly repeated for the length of the track. Other than the unusual shape it behaves very much like a regular motor, including back-emf and all. One of the main differences between a linear motor and a regular rotating one is that a linear motor cannot make use of gearing to increase its torque--its maximum strength is that of the magnetic moment between the two magnetic poles. While that is no problem with the low friction of a maglev train, it can present problems in uses such as elevators, where either a much stronger motor is needed, or many smaller ones, as compared to a regular geared motor.]]>Nov 26th 2007 9:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 3:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 4:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
besides, "i hate the look of wind turbines, they're a real eyesore"

so they prefer giant chimneys pouring black and white smoke into the sky's... which is the real eyesore, also, that smoke can damage their childrens health, what is this gonna do, deprive them of that wind with the changing air currents, oh no, that might do nothing to damage their health, quickly, lets give them breathing masks hooked up to an exhaust. Idiots.]]>Dec 26th 2007 6:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Smaller versions of these could be placed on top of office towers and appartment buildings to reduce energy costs.]]>Nov 26th 2007 4:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
And make one small enough to sit on top of my head to power my gadgets while you're at it :) And one to sit on my desk, so I can blow on it every once in a while.

How about micro-generators on every door in your house, in the office where you work too? Everytime someone opens a door it generates a wee bit of electricity (ironically to power the electric doors at the grocery store).

Sure we need these massive high capacity power generation stations, and I like the looks of this and other wind powered ideas, but get me some realistic generating capacity at home and then we're talking.]]>Nov 26th 2007 4:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Or another: to generate the 1GW that they claim, even with a perfectly efficient system and constant 20 MPH winds, your collecting area needs to be over 1 square kilometer. So, the blades in that picture need to be around twice as large as the tallest buildings on earth. I can practically read the inventor's mind: "Is no problem. My photocopying machine has new enlarge feature. I will enlarge plans until I have the worlds largest wind power machine! Bwahahahaha!"

Looking at the picture, I'm not sure if that thing would even turn when the wind blows--the blades seem to be arranged the wrong way.

]]>Nov 26th 2007 4:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Secondly think of it as the whirly birds they put on houses to vent the celling. They spin, or even as a variable prop on planes and boats. You can change the blade pitch for maximum effiency.]]>Nov 26th 2007 6:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
Sure this thing would be massive, but I live in Canada. We have the room.]]>Nov 26th 2007 9:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 28th 2007 2:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 4:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 4:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/Nov 26th 2007 4:38PM