Talk:Windbelt

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Fundamental Problem

"Prototypes of the device are claimed to be ten-to-thirty times more efficient[1] than wind microturbines."

Elementary physics shows that to be impossible.

"One prototype has successfully powered two LEDs, a radio, and a clock using wind generated from a household fan. The cost of the materials was well under US$10"

A fraction of a watt for $10 is an exceptionally high cost per watt. Its hard to think of any locations where a miniature solar pv panel would n ot do a much better job at lower cost.

Promotional publicity does not equal facts. Occasionally wiki writers forget. Tabby (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small turbine (sub 1-meter) efficiencies are typically well under 1%. Efficiency of 30% isn't impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.196.46.172 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The materials required for the building of the windbelt are marvelously simple and abundant in comparison to those needed to create a viable solar panel. The technical knowledge required to make a windbelt is also far less than what is needed to make a solar panel. Additionally, it appears that for 5 watts of solar power, over $100USD is a typical price. Finally, the windbelt allows wind power to join (some) geothermal and (many) solar generation devices in the reliable realm of non-moving parts.

When taking into account these facts, the windbelt does stand up to, at least some, scrutiny and does appear to be a useful and viable power generation device. Let also us not forget that the price of a windbelt might very well be 0$ as the components can theoretically simply be found or salvaged; in which case the dollar per watt ratio would quite hard to beat.

Now having said this, solar power generation still rules as does geothermal 75.144.242.225 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have a look at your claims. First I note the one key point is not addressed in any real way, ie the excessive cost per watt.

"The materials required for the building of the windbelt are marvelously simple and abundant in comparison to those needed to create a viable solar panel."

Solar panels are made from silicon, one of the most abundant elements on earth. Windbelts are made mostly from copper wire, less abundant, and and metal alloys. The hugely greater cost per watt means it uses up many times more material and energy per watt than solar.

"The technical knowledge required to make a windbelt is also far less than what is needed to make a solar panel."

True, but the excessive cost per watt rules it out for 3rd world apps.

"Additionally, it appears that for 5 watts of solar power, over $100USD is a typical price."

not true

"Finally, the windbelt allows wind power to join (some) geothermal and (many) solar generation devices in the reliable realm of non-moving parts."

sales cobblers. The prime competitor is tiny solar panels, which genuinely have no moving parts, unlike the windbelt.

"When taking into account these facts, the windbelt does stand up to, at least some, scrutiny and does appear to be a useful and viable power generation device."

Over $100 per watt makes it not remotely viable.

"Let also us not forget that the price of a windbelt might very well be 0$ as the components can theoretically simply be found or salvaged; in which case the dollar per watt ratio would quite hard to beat."

That's its one plus point. But that relegates it to no more than homebrewed micropower - power so tiny that it will drive what, a wall clock? Not very practical or useful.

Tabby (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generic or tradename, the Peter R. Payne invention

The Payne patent of 1975 should be discussed relative to article. And also Dr. Hare's Aeroflexor. Comparison, contrasts,etc. Joefaust (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional and ignoring the primary meaning of the word?

This article is very promotional and has no critical information or evaluations by unbiased sources. All the information comes from the promoters. In addition, if you look in the dictionary the primary meaning of the term windbelt is a set of global wind patterns analyzed in meteorology. This article should be rewritten to make that the primary meaning, with a section on the Shawn Frayn invention, rewritten to give it a WP:NPOV, located further down. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claims

A promoter claiming something is not sufficient for inclusion in wiki. A reference that demonstrates they do indeed claim it is also of no merit. Tabby (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

efficiency

Efficiency can be measured in various ways. Here I think Frayne is comparing power generated for a given device size in a given wind speed, and not power in/out. I don't think he's claiming the windbelt is an overunity device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.27 (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]