Why is it claimed that Betz's limit is a law?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter normandajc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law Limit Wind turbine
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Betz's limit, which defines the maximum power coefficient (Cp_Betz = 16/27 or ~59.3%) that can be extracted from wind by a turbine. While large wind turbines operate efficiently near this limit, they are often halted due to blade bending stresses, not because they exceed the limit. The conversation critiques the misconception that Betz's limit is a law, emphasizing that it is a theoretical maximum that has not been universally demonstrated. Additionally, the potential of piezoelectric systems to double the power coefficient is explored, although this remains theoretical.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Betz's limit and its implications in wind energy conversion.
  • Familiarity with turbine mechanics, particularly Darrieus-type turbines.
  • Knowledge of fluid dynamics as it relates to wind and turbine interaction.
  • Basic principles of energy conversion, including kinetic and potential energy.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mechanics of Darrieus-type turbines and their energy recovery systems.
  • Explore the principles of piezoelectric systems and their applications in energy conversion.
  • Study the implications of relative velocity in wind turbine efficiency.
  • Investigate the differences between theoretical limits and practical applications in wind energy technology.
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, renewable energy researchers, and students studying wind energy systems, as well as anyone interested in the theoretical and practical aspects of turbine efficiency and energy conversion.

  • #31
normandajc said:
For Darrieus type turbines, the stresses vary during each turn. You do have a notion of time. It is possible to transform constraints into additional energy recovery.
Time varying stress still isn't energy.

I agree with @Arjan82 ; at best, you are trying to use the same energy twice, and glossing-over it.

Since evidently this is your own unpublished "personal theory", it is not appropriate for discussion on PF. If you get it published in a reputable journal we can discuss it further, but I don't think publication is likely since it appears to suggest a violation of conservation of energy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn, vanhees71 and Arjan82

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K