Unusual design of a free-flow hydropower station

[Hydropower]

TL;DR Summary

Highly efficient hydraulic turbine based on original research in hydrodynamics

I wanted to discuss the unusual design of a high-power hydraulic turbine.
I'll start with this excerpt from the article.
The article is in Serbian, so only an autotranslation.

Has anyone seen formula #6 in any hydrodynamics textbooks?

[Full image copy of journal article deleted by the Mentors to avoid copyright violation]

 

[berkeman]

Welcome to PF.

Is this your own original research?

 

[Hydropower]

No, this is not my research. And I thought this would be a good place to discuss them here.

As far as I understand all the publications and designs of different people. But everything is interconnected.
My attention was attracted by the unusual physical and hydrodynamic calculations, the unusual design of the turbine itself and the statements that it is significantly more efficient than its analogues (according to the authors, by 50-60%).
Another unusual thing is that almost all the articles that I found were written in Cyrillic (possibly Serbian) and only by their titles in English did they appear in the search.
What’s more strange is that that University of Michigan article is also in Cyrillic and had to be translated by Google.

If there are no questions about the first article, then I will post further. It’s even more interesting, and the formula highlighted at the top is derived in a different way.
I have some connection to hydropower, but this is the first time I have seen this formula.

No objections ?

 

[erobz]

No, this is not my research. And I thought this would be a good place to discuss them here.

As far as I understand all the publications and designs of different people. But everything is interconnected.
My attention was attracted by the unusual physical and hydrodynamic calculations, the unusual design of the turbine itself and the statements that it is significantly more efficient than its analogues (according to the authors, by 50-60%).
Another unusual thing is that almost all the articles that I found were written in Cyrillic (possibly Serbian) and only by their titles in English did they appear in the search.
What’s more strange is that that University of Michigan article is also in Cyrillic and had to be translated by Google.

If there are no questions about the first article, then I will post further. It’s even more interesting, and the formula highlighted at the top is derived in a different way.
I have some connection to hydropower, but this is the first time I have seen this formula.

No objections ?

Vague refence to "damless hydroelectric power plants", what are you trying calculate...diagram of the new energy production scheme please.

 

[berkeman]

If there are no questions about the first article, then I will post further.

References must be to articles in peer-reviewed journals and mainstream textbooks. It does not sound like you have such references for your questions about this? Please try to find some acceptable references to post instead. Thank you.

From the PF Rules:

Acceptable Sources:
Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Usually, we accept references from journals that are listed in the Thomson/Reuters list (now Clarivate):

https://mjl.clarivate.com/home

Use the search feature to search for journals by words in their titles.

In recent years, there has been an increasing number of "fringe" and Internet-only journals that appear to have lax reviewing standards. We do not generally accept references from such journals. Note that some of these fringe journals are listed in Thomson Reuters. Just because a journal is listed in Thomson Reuters does not mean it is acceptable.

References that appear only on http://www.arxiv.org/ (which is not peer-reviewed) are subject to review by the Mentors. We recognize that in some fields this is the accepted means of professional communication, but in other fields, we prefer to wait until formal publication elsewhere. References that appear only on viXra (http://www.vixra.org) are never allowed.

 

[Hydropower]

Excellent, thank you.
To begin with, there was an excerpt from an article in arXiv in Serbian, automatically translated into English.

If there are no questions about it and the equations that are derived there, then I will post the article preceding this one.
Please.

[Full image copy of journal article deleted by the Mentors to avoid copyright violation]

 

[renormalize]

If there are no questions about it and the equations that are derived there, then I will post the article preceding this one.
Please.

Your posted article is from the International Scientific Journal for Alternative Energy and Ecology (ISJAEE), whose website https://www.isjaee.com/jour indicates that it is a Russian journal with the ISSN number 1608-8298. Searching either "alternative energy and ecology" or "1608-8298" at https://mjl.clarivate.com/home yields zero results. So per the comment by @berkeman, I believe this paper is unacceptable for discussion on Physics Forums.

 

[Hydropower]

Strange.
Is Russian science somehow different from generally accepted science?
What if some interesting articles were published there?

Do you remember why the ideas of Carnot or Mendel were not implemented for a long time?
Because they were published in unimportant publications.
This slowed down the development of genetics and thermodynamics for a long time.
There are many such examples.

 

[renormalize]

Strange.
Is Russian science somehow different from generally accepted science?

The unacceptability of your reference has nothing to do with "Russian science". As a counterexample, if you search at https://mjl.clarivate.com/home for ISSN "1468-4780" you find the listing:

for the respected Russian journal Physics Uspekhi. Your paper is from a Russian journal that is apparently too low quality or too problematic for inclusion on Clarivate's Master Journal List. Hence, it's is off limits here.

 

[Hydropower]

And I just gave examples of “unrespected” publications in which the works of Carnot and Mendel were published.
Does this make their ideas unnecessary and unimportant?

Have you read the excerpt from the article in arXiv?
If you didn’t have any questions about it, then you shouldn’t have any when reading this article. Did you read it ?

 

[Rive]

Has anyone seen formula #6 in any hydrodynamics textbooks?

Just decided to give that paper a checkup, at least at the level of definitions.
Did not take too much time to bounce back.
Could you please explain the slight difference between the classic and cited definition of Froude number?

 

[renormalize]

And I just gave examples of “unrespected” publications in which the works of Carnot and Mendel were published.

But you can also find countless crackpot papers with little or no redeeming value published in a multitude of bogus journals. How can we possibly tell into which category your posted reference falls? The proprietor of this site has decided that the way to judge the acceptability of an article for discussion on Physics Forums is that it should be from a refereed journal that appears on Clarivate's Master Journal List. You are of course always free to repost on a different platform with looser standards.

 

[Hydropower]

Agree.
Therefore, I believe that a differentiated approach is needed here.
Otherwise, the forum runs the risk of refusing to discuss interesting ideas (even if they have not yet been published anywhere).
Or, for example, they are published in another language. After all, science develops not only in English.
But discussing common truths from textbooks is not at all interesting.

 

[renormalize]

But discussing common truths from textbooks is not at all interesting.

Nevertheless, that is exactly the stated purpose of Physics Forums: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/:

• We wish to discuss mainstream science. That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.

If you object to this restriction, you need to make your case with the mentors and/or @Greg Bernhardt. But be warned, many before you have tried to get the rules here changed to allow discussion of non-mainstream science, but have failed (and rightly so in my opinion).

 

[Hydropower]

Just decided to give that paper a checkup, at least at the level of definitions.
Did not take too much time to bounce back.
Could you please explain the slight difference between the classic and cited definition of Froude number?

I also wondered about this question and realized that the Froude number is written slightly differently in different sources.
Here is an example pl.wikipedia.org Froude number

But as I understand it, since this is a dimensionless coefficient, it is not its absolute value that is important, but its relative value.
It is greater than one, less than or equal to. And in this case, its spelling does not matter.

 

[Hydropower]

Nevertheless, that is exactly the stated purpose of Physics Forums: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/:

• We wish to discuss mainstream science. That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.

If you object to this restriction, you need to make your case with the mentors and/or @Greg Bernhardt. But be warned, many before you have tried to get the rules here changed to allow discussion of non-mainstream science, but have failed (and rightly so in my opinion).

Thank you.
No, I won't do that.
If the material seems uninteresting, then I don’t mind it not being discussed.

But, it seems to me that even unpublished material is discussed here, which does not contain any scientific content at all, for example Small-scale hydropower generators installed in irrigation canals.
And it is quite interesting.

 

[Rive]

it is not its absolute value that is important, but its relative value.

Senci et's usid as part of iquateons, that's not trui.

(Solve that. Imagine doing that for a whole publication, at the level of equations.... Just an example why common language and formalism enforced by scientific community is so important... => part of the reason why the rule about respectable sources got established)

I could not dig up relevant examples for that alternative form from (respectable) international sources.
Might be some local school/variation/inheritance.
Makes the stuff local. Not fit for discussion outside of it's local circles, and sadly, that's regardless of it's content.

That's how it is.

 

[Hydropower]

Senci et's usid as part of iquateons, that's not trui.

(Solve that. Imagine doing that for a whole publication, at the level of equations.... Just an example why common language and formalism enforced by scientific community is so important... => part of the reason why the rule about respectable sources got established)

I could not dig up relevant examples for that alternative form from (respectable) international sources.
Might be some local school/variation/inheritance.
Makes the stuff local. Not fit for discussion outside of it's local circles, and sadly, that's regardless of it's content.

That's how it is.

I gave you an example from Wikipedia (just like you).If you look at other languages, you will see the same thing.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude-Zahl

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Número_de_Froude

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE_%D0%A4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0 %B0

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numero_di_Froude

 

[Hydropower]

Vague refence to "damless hydroelectric power plants", what are you trying calculate...diagram of the new energy production scheme please.

If you are interested in what a turbine operating on this principle looks like, here is one of the possible options. This is a small prototype

 

[Hydropower]

Here's the continuation.What else struck me in these articles was these three-dimensional diagrams built using these formulas.

[Full image copy of journal article deleted by the Mentors to avoid copyright violation]

 

[berkeman]

I wanted to discuss the unusual design of a high-power hydraulic turbine.

and the statements that it is significantly more efficient than its analogues (according to the authors, by 50-60%).

Thread is closed for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

After further review and a PM conversation with the OP, this thread is now closed. The OP will look for more recent articles in acceptable journals, and may start a new thread with those better references at a later time. Thanks for all who have participated.