4 ms·

I believe that if you consider the money it takes to add the conical casing, and instead just make a bigger tri-blade without a casing with that same money, you

I believe that if you consider the money it takes to add the conical casing, and instead just make a bigger tri-blade without a casing with that same money, you come out ahead.

mynegation 4y ago
Not an expert, but that rings true. Probably environmental impact of a huge volume of air sucked into the cone and fed into a high-speed grinder should be factored in as well.
deelowe 4y ago
It's not that. It's because they are optimized for low pressure differentials.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I'm sure both are true. It doesn't make physical sense or economic sense. Encasing the entire turbine with a shroud the diameter of the blades would be astronomically expensive. However, there is no rule in physics that you can't 10x the windspeed with a focused inlet. Natural mountain ranges around some farms have a similar effect to improve power output, but we would never consider building a natural mountain to improve turbine efficiency
  - 5d8767c68926 4y ago
    > but we would never consider building a natural mountain to improve turbine efficiency Maybe we could? Mining operations already produce huge volume of material from tailings and overburden. Not an outrageous idea to be more strategic in how and where that material is placed. Could create some artificial ranges with better wind properties.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I mean I think it's outrageous but I would be willing to look at a cost benefit analysis proving me wrong