Simulation vs Reality: Wind Power System

[T C]

TL;DR

I am presenting here a paper based on simulation and I want to know if something in real is based on the simulation, how close that can be to the simulated results.

Here is a paper on a wind power system and the paper is based on simulation. i just want to know if something in real is built based on the simulation, how close that will be in reality in comparison to the simulation results. And anybody here has experience in building things based on simulation, their remarks are most welcome.

 

[anorlunda]

To run a simulation, you start with a model and then choose initial conditions and a scenario to simulate. All three of these, the model and initial conditions and scenario, may or may not conform to a future real model and initial conditions and scenario. So I don't really understand your question.

I'm not trying to be flippant, but the real answer to "how close is it?" question is, "close enough to give us confidence." It is a human behavior question, not a physics question.

 

[phinds]

Many electronic circuits are built based on simulations because you can simulate electrical circuits to a great deal of predictive accuracy. Weather systems no so much.

 

[jrmichler]

CFD works best when you have experimental data, and use CFD to show what is happening. CFD also works well to find the results of small changes in a system. CFD simulations have considerable difficulty with predictive accuracy because experimental data is needed to tune the model. That paper does not compare their results to any experimental data.

Search terms wind power venturi effect turns up numerous good hits. One of those hits, https://newatlas.com/dodgy-wind-turbines/27876/, mentions the INVELOX discussed in the paper: "Apparently Sheerwind, the company behind the Invelox system, has so far not allowed anyone outside the company to test the system."

More good reading comes from searching Betz Limit. The Betz Limit is a fundamental limitation on wind power. Any meaningful analysis of a wind power system must include a comparison to a conventional three blade horizontal axis wind turbine, and to the Betz Limit. The paper does not do that.

That paper shows all the signs of junk science with the goal of persuading nontechnical people to invest in their efforts.

 

[T C]

Weather systems no so much.

i am not talking about weather systems, but rather the system that has been told in the paper.

 

[T C]

@jrmichler Here are a few examples (paper 1, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265788093_Numerical_Analysis_of_Venturi_Ducted_Horizontal_Axis_Wind_Turbine_for_Efficient_Power_Generation, 3, 4, 5). There are many other examples too available on net. Maybe Invelox hasn't been tested, but it was under study for a long time by various researchers around the world.

 

[jrmichler]

Wikipedia has a good article on unconventional wind turbines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_wind_turbines. Key takeaway about this device: "The device has been constructed and tested, but has been criticized for lack of efficiency."

CleanTechnica has a good article that discusses why neither diffuser augmented wind turbines nor venturi wind turbines are practical: https://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/08/invelox-ducted-turbine-latest-long-line-failures/. Key takeaway:
finally sparking Mike Bergey to comment in return (reproduced with permission).

Concentrators and ducted fans have been proposed and promoted by the dozens over the last 35 years that I have been in the industry. In your due diligence you must have missed Next-Gen Wind, Vortec, TurboDynamX, Enflo, Enco, Ring Turbine, Smart Wind, Wind Cube (Wind Sphere), WindTammer, Sky Wolf, Elena, Catching Wind Power, and OptiWind, to name a few. The fatal flaw in all these unsuccessful attempts to build a better wind turbine is the promoters failure to account for the wind’s ability and preference to go around a blockage like the entrance to a funnel. The operating environment of a wind turbine is nothing like the constraining ducting of a hose or a wind tunnel and that dooms the concept to poorer performance. And the dishonest use of the rotor area instead of the total intercepted area to inflate the calculated efficiency doesn’t change the physics.

For those not familiar with Mr. Bergey, he’s twice past-President of AWEA, served on the AWEA board for 26 years, has manufactured the top-selling small wind turbine for roughly the past 30 years and chaired governmental committees around wind energy.

I stand by what I said above, but with one change and one addition:

1) "persuading gullible nontechnical people"

2) The Betz limit applies to the largest of the diffuser / venturi / rotor diameters, not just the rotor diameter.

 

[T C]

Here is another https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332834451_Ducted_Wind_Turbines_A_Review and instead of blogs in cleantechnica, I am expecting papers in return.

The device has been constructed and tested, but has been criticized for lack of efficiency."

Efficiency is a relative factor and with proper research and development, it can be changed.

 

[Rive]

Efficiency is a relative factor and with proper research and development, it can be changed.

That goes a bit different way, regarding the original 'if something in real is based on the simulation, how close that can be to the simulated results' question.
When the result of the simulation and the result of the experiment is in conflict the first thing to do is not to weave the result of experiment but to adjust the simulation first, since it was clearly not good enough.

Ps.: by the way, the actual problems around wind energy are NOT about the efficiency.

 

[Tom.G]

@T C, it sounds more like you have made up your mind and are looking for validation here. Those of us on this site tend to research from mostly unbiased, peer reviewed, sources and try to evaluate without biases. We don't always hit that target dead center, but are regularly pretty darn close. When we miss, as I have on occasion, others here are quick to point to the facts; which helps us all.

Please try to keep an open mind when someone responds to a question with an answer you weren't expecting. We normally put in a fair amount of effort to help people Learn, especially when they want to!

 

[T C]

When the result of the simulation and the result of the experiment is in conflict the first thing to do is not to weave the result of experiment but to adjust the simulation first, since it was clearly not good enough.

So far, I have presented a few papers. I don't know whether all of them are NOT peer reviewed or the essay in cleantechnica is peer reviewed or not. One of the paper that I have cited has been based on real experimentation.

Please try to keep an open mind when someone responds to a question with an answer you weren't expecting. We normally put in a fair amount of effort to help people Learn, especially when they want to!

I am open, but problem is I haven't got proper paper references yet. Kindly go through all the paper references that I have presented so far and then decide.

 

[mfb]

A good simulation will be close to a real device, a bad simulation will not (or just by chance). Judging the quality of a simulation needs expertise in the systems being simulated, unless the errors are very basic or the result obviously doesn't make sense (e.g. violates physical laws).

Concerning the paper linked in post 1, the abstract has so many grammar errors that the paper is not worth reading. The authors made no effort writing a readable paper and it's clear there hasn't been any sort of peer review or editorial oversight.

 

[T C]

There are other papers. What's your opinion about those?

 

[Vanadium 50]

There are other papers. What's your opinion about those?

I looked at the next two papers and I could have written this too:

Concerning the paper linked in post 1, the abstract has so many grammar errors that the paper is not worth reading. The authors made no effort writing a readable paper and it's clear there hasn't been any sort of peer review or editorial oversight.

Plus the are in predatory journals.

In short, they are steaming piles of poop. The most charitable interpretation is that you can't tell the difference between a good paper and a steaming pile of poop.

You got some good advice from @russ_watters in June:

Or maybe better, you should probably enroll in an introductory fluid dynamics class, because you seem completely incapable of self-directed or forum-assisted learning. You may need an absolutely rigid structure that forces you to focus and doesn't allow you to wander off track. Here we just close threads and issue infractions. Maybe failing a test would help you focus.

I think you should follow it.

 

[jrmichler]

The OP has been given good feedback from several people, and the subject fully covered, so it's time to close this thread.

 

[Dale]

Sorry @jrmichler for posting after the lock, but I thought this might be helpful for future readers of the thread

Kindly go through all the paper references that I have presented so far and then decide.

There are other papers. What's your opinion about those?

The first article is in Advances in Mechanical Engineering, ranked 91st out of 115 mechanical engineering journals with an average article impact score in the 15th percentile.

The next is in International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, which is not sufficiently reputable to even be ranked.

The next is in International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Computer Applications, which is similarly not even ranked.

The next is a blog on Better World Solutions.

The next is in Applied Sciences, which is ranked 6th out of 14 materials science journals with an average article impact score in the 47th percentile.

The next is in Procedia Technology, which is not even ranked.

The last is in International Journal on Future Revolution in Computer Science & Communication Engineering which is not even ranked.

Edit: in a previous version of this post I was unsure if Applied Sciences was the same journal as Applied Sciences Basel. They are the same, as both have ISSN: 2076-3417