Why Do Wind Power Turbines Have Fewer Blades Than Hydro Power Turbines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter scorpio_wan1945
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Design Turbine
AI Thread Summary
Wind power turbines typically have fewer blades than hydro power turbines due to the significant difference in fluid density, with water being approximately 833 times denser than air. This density affects momentum and energy transfer, requiring hydro turbines to be more robust to handle the shear forces of fast-moving water. Wind turbines are designed with optimized blade lengths, where adding more blades could increase mass without substantial benefits. Additionally, wind turbines have operational cut-out speeds around 65 mph, while hydro turbines can manage higher flow rates. The design differences reflect the distinct physical properties and operational requirements of wind and water as energy sources.
scorpio_wan1945
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
hello,

there is a question bugging my head for quite some time..

why wind power plant has lesser turbine blades while the one in hydro power plant has more?...

is it due to the density of the fluid?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is probably a function of density (water has a density about 833 times that of air), speed of the flow both of which affect momentum and energy transfer. Water turbines are much more rigid because of the shear forces associated with the rushing water.

I believe wind turbines are optimized on radius (length) of the blades. Adding one more blade would increase the mass by another 33%, perhaps without added advantage.

The wind turbines cut out at around 65 mph (~97 ft/s), and I believe water turbine may have higher flows.
 
That seemed like an interesting question to me. Here's something off the net:

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/design/index.htm

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/design/concepts.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks for the explanation... and the links proves very useful :)
 
Some examples of hydro turbines:

http://www.voithsiemens.com/vs_e_prfmc_pwrful_prdcts_turbines.htm

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/f-ene/hydro/english/products/equipment/turbine.htm

http://www.hitachi.us/Apps/hitachicom/content.jsp?page=powerequipment/TurnkeyPowerPlants/HydroPlants/index.html&level=2&section=powerequipment&parent=TurnkeyPowerPlants&nav=left&path=jsp/hitachi/forbus/powerequipmentsystems/&nId=iD

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/hydro/en/turbines/index.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top