Difference between revisions of "Talk:Darrieus Turbine - 2m combined"
From OHO - search engine for sustainable open hardware projects
Inddigital (talk | contribs) ((by SublimeText.Mediawiker)) |
Inddigital (talk | contribs) ((by SublimeText.Mediawiker)) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
** Tubular pole: It is discarded, so as not to depend on other structures or get a robust tubular, scarce in some locations | ** Tubular pole: It is discarded, so as not to depend on other structures or get a robust tubular, scarce in some locations | ||
== Part number 1.02 -- [[User:Xtech2020_review|Xtech2020_review]] ([[User talk:Xtech2020_review|talk]]) 19:35, | == -- [[User:Xtech2020_review|Xtech2020_review]] ([[User talk:Xtech2020_review|talk]]) 19:42, 24 January 2023 (CEST) == | ||
Include information about the estimated power that the equipment will have | |||
== Part number 1.02 -- [[User:Xtech2020_review|Xtech2020_review]] ([[User talk:Xtech2020_review|talk]]) 19:35, 24 January 2023 (CEST) == | |||
It seems to me that this piece is somewhat critical to manufacture it in wood, this because it has some cuts and perforations that can generate stress concentrators, it may be good to evaluate its mechanical resistance and, if necessary, make it in aluminum for example | It seems to me that this piece is somewhat critical to manufacture it in wood, this because it has some cuts and perforations that can generate stress concentrators, it may be good to evaluate its mechanical resistance and, if necessary, make it in aluminum for example | ||
== Part number C -- [[User:Xtech2020_review|Xtech2020_review]] ([[User talk:Xtech2020_review|talk]]) 19: | == Part number C -- [[User:Xtech2020_review|Xtech2020_review]] ([[User talk:Xtech2020_review|talk]]) 19:40, 24 January 2023 (CEST) == | ||
Please, include the shape of the mold as well, it would just make an offset of the airfoil, 3 or 5 mm outwards, it is not something critical, but from this, it is easier for a manufacturer to make the mold | Please, include the shape of the mold as well, it would just make an offset of the airfoil, 3 or 5 mm outwards, it is not something critical, but from this, it is easier for a manufacturer to make the mold | ||
== Part number 2.08 -- [[User:Xtech2020_review|Xtech2020_review]] ([[User talk:Xtech2020_review|talk]]) 19:53, 24 January 2023 (CEST) == | |||
When this piece goes through a turning process, it remains 1.5 mm thick at the ends. It is recommended to check its mechanical resistance and, if necessary, use a solid or thicker shaft | |||
Revision as of 21:48, 24 January 2023
Development and documentation - Technical solutions -- Inddigital (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2023 (CET)
- Blades construction
- Fiberglass Covered Ribs: Preferred option, the works are not complicated and the materials are accessible
- Foam wire cutting: Discarded, later covered with fiberglass or other
- With PVC pipes: Discarded, not streamlined
- Airfoil
- AH93W215: Preferable option, justification raised in technical development file
- Generator type
- DC motor: Low efficiency
- Axial Flux Alternator: Preferred Option
- Car alternator: Requires more speed or speed reducer
- Self start metthod
- Combined Savonius: Preferred Option
- Variable pitch: Medium complexity, fully mechanical, see this link
- Magnus Effect: Requires additional power and engines
- Mast type
- Truss tower: Made with angles, height between 2 and 3 meters, preferable option
- Tubular pole: It is discarded, so as not to depend on other structures or get a robust tubular, scarce in some locations
-- Xtech2020_review (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2023 (CEST)
Include information about the estimated power that the equipment will have
Part number 1.02 -- Xtech2020_review (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2023 (CEST)
It seems to me that this piece is somewhat critical to manufacture it in wood, this because it has some cuts and perforations that can generate stress concentrators, it may be good to evaluate its mechanical resistance and, if necessary, make it in aluminum for example
Part number C -- Xtech2020_review (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2023 (CEST)
Please, include the shape of the mold as well, it would just make an offset of the airfoil, 3 or 5 mm outwards, it is not something critical, but from this, it is easier for a manufacturer to make the mold
Part number 2.08 -- Xtech2020_review (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2023 (CEST)
When this piece goes through a turning process, it remains 1.5 mm thick at the ends. It is recommended to check its mechanical resistance and, if necessary, use a solid or thicker shaft