No conspiracy this time riff_raff, NIH is just human nature.
As for the technicals of your intriguing design, the 14 000 ft-lbs (19 000 Nm)input-torque would need a speed of some 1200 Rpm to convey 2.5 MW, which seems about right for a 6- or even 4-pole generator on the output.
Given that your solution of torque-transfer simply through the rollers alone is feasible, I suspect that one of the problems could be to accommodate such an apparatus on top of a 100 meter tower, with the lubrication, cooling and maintenance needed. The 40-something to one speed-increaser after the turbine is usually pretty troublesome as it is.
To the best of my understanding, frequency-converters of today have an efficiency of at least 97 percent, are air-cooled, have very low maintenace and can sit on the ground.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
Well, yes it's true that once a Patent is filed you are protected. But from what????
As already pointed out, large companies are all too eager to circumvent Patents. Worse still foreign companies will simply steal them in the knowledge that a small company/individual cannot possibly hope to take them through the courts.
We did file Patents but pulled them before publication day because:-
1) Once a Patent is published you only get 20 years protection. So if your product is not in the market making money you are paying for a patent for nothing and also diminishing the potential period of returns.
2) Once companies get to see your Patent they invariably try to get around them or use the concepts in other ways. Which again would lead to lawsuits etc.
3) We were given the 'heads up' by a number of Automotive Engineers (thanks by the way guys) as to the ways in which even their own companies will try to rip people off or simply 'stonewall' competition.
In essence we pulled the Patents so we can spend time building up working capital to allow us to perform the necessary R&D and if necessary (but hopefully NOT) take any legal action that may be necessary. In addition, by filing Patents later we get longer protection.
Since we currently seem to be up against the NIH virus it doesn't make sense to publish the technology details.
Our best bet is to get support from interested parties by attempting to find a worthwhile partner.
In addition, we are preparing for a Benchmark test for a working transmission. This can be distributed to allow industry (and yourselves) to at least know that the technology "does what it says on the tin".
As for statements implying that we are simply stating things we cannot support well... only time will tell. But if you want to place a bet, I wouldn't put your house up for collateral if I were you.
The prototype sitting on my desk speaks for itself.
As for the future. Well, we're having the time of our lives working on the different applications. Even if it doesn't pay off, how many people can say they followed their dream.
And, if there is anybody out there in the Automotive or Power Generation industries then by all means get in touch. Once the NDA is in place we're sure you will be fascinated by it all.
Well, this is the very dilemma, how to reveal as little as possible to a potential investor without losing his attention. At the same time, once you have disclosed the secrets, the genie is really out of the bottle, why you are lost without some sort of protection for your intellectual property. The patent-law says something about an idea disclosed in a publication or to "a great number of people" is void.
One popular method in situations like these, is to file a "provisory" application, with a very wide main clam, as well as a zillion details added as secondary claims and so forth. You can alway narrow things down after receiving the first statement from the by the authorities assigned examiner. You can never add new claims, but you can eliminate or clearify them as long as you have support for it in the description.
Over here anyway, this would typically give yourself three months to shoot your mouth off before you even have to pay the application-fee, with the fee paid you have six months or something before you have to get serious.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
OK, OK, this is fascinating. Unfortunatly for automotive CVT aspirants there seems to now be a dirth of companies now producing cheaper and cheaper, decent geared 'boxes.
I guess at least with turbines a geared box could not do the job as raff desribed it so there's not that element of entrenchment but you've still got a hill to climb. Raff have you approached anyone in New Zealand yet? They are massive on renewables and the govenment is pushing it as a national asset. They design and build windmalls there too. It's only a limited market with 4 million residents but it could be a first step...
I was chatting to a guy over there from a company called energy for industry (part of the meridian group but pretty independant from what I can make out). It seems they build or buy power generation and other infrastructure then lease it. perhaps a start there?
Also the Kiwi's are very proud of their innovating and tinkering so the man who can may be slightly more receptive than elsewhere. They have the facilties to manufacture there too, and a reasnoble exchange rate...
Although I guess they might need it a bit further on in the development stage, There are government grants that EFI may be eligable for development though.
I'm just rambling on, jumping way too far ahead here, trying to think of all the angles here...
I think you could get some sort of prototype much cheaper than you think, depending on how you intend to actuate the rollers and what materials and surface coatings you need. Do you have drawings that are dimensioned and toleranced?
I'm assuming you were intending on using steel throughout? Were you thinking of chrome plating the rollers? do you know what kind of bearings you intend to use, I assume they would need to be of the roller type for efficincy?
If you don't want to go in to this, or it's just way below your line of thinking, I won't be offended.
If you make a search on www.delphion.com or http://gb.espacenet.com, you will find that creating a transmission of power by using non-geared rollers is a popular theme.
However, I have failed in my attempts to find an industrial or automotive application, although my kid's RC-modelcar uses a differential with balls rather than gears. I'm afraid that conveying force through friction alone is the problem, when a high level of contact-pressure creates an equally high rolling-friction and the need for cooling. The conventional evolvent-curve gear is actually ingenious there.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
Sorry I've left it so long, I've been pondering...
And all this could be in vain if you have already gone down this road, but here goes,
O.K. your dead right about it being an expensive prototype, even making the casings from ally plate, bolted or welded together to save further money.
I'm guessing the manufacture and finishing of the internals and purchasing the hydraulic control unit are going to be the most expensive?
Then there's dyno time.
How small can you actually make the rollers and still get a valid proof of concept?
Is it possible to at least get the diameters of the largest discs down to around a foot or less so that they can be produced on the most commonly available machines or would this wreck everything?
Whats the comonality of parts like? Can the 3 discs be made to the exact same drawing? and the rollers the same? that would save big in the short and long term.
Do you know companies that could tender for this work in your area?
It's only a quote after all...
I know a bunch over here but could forsee three problems.
1.Getting specialist steel yourself in small quantities is going to be difficult (unless you know someone who orders it in larger quantities), getting a contract machine shop to supply that steel is probably just as hard, especially finding one that can both supply the steel and do the work. Can it be made from more commom grade? even with reduced service life on the prototype? I'm sure those steels are widely used but i'm talking one of the top two or three types of steel likely to be used by machine shops in your area who carry out this sort of work. Talk to them.
2. Even placing orders on behalf of an established customer I used to get moaned at by sub-contract machine shops when placing orders for very small batches with new tooling requirements, they would often load the price pretty high so as to let us know they didn't really want the hassle. Being a regular customer you can sometimes strong arm them (in a polite way) into doing it for less, but coming from nowhere this would be difficult. They are much happier making 30 than 3.
3. Contract Heat treaters will charge a fee per oven regardless of how many items so as many parts as possible need to have the same treatment and it should hopefully be something not too obscure so it dosen't need a custom program.
Finally I would be adding 1 off or even 2 off spares per part/order because right first time isn't always in these folks vocabulary, and I'd have someone with excellent inspection/Q.C. skills to check the parts when they arrive in case they need to be rejected back on the supplier for non-conformance.
Also the age old issue, you don't have any parts which could be made significantly cheaper by splitting into assemblies do you? no deep blind holes with very tight tolerances etc.
I know this is probably just wasted gas on my part, but if not, getting quotes is free and it would be the next stage of development. It's more credible to approach someone for funding if you have recent quotes.
Also all these problems are from a U.K. point of view (and i'm out of it for a few years now, things might have changed but I doubt it will be that different) I know the U.S. has a better range of raw materials available. Having said that the machine shops over here are very good. I've heard it said that Japanese motorsport companies are sometimes forced to have their more complex rapid manufacturing done over here because nowhere else in the world can go from drawing to turning out finished product so quickly & cheaply with so many sub-contract processes.
Regards, Nathan.
N.B. Before Anyone gets hold of this and cries outrage, The Japs and the Germans tend to get a higher number of parts in the batch right. I.e. their quality records are near perfect and the U.K. can sometimes struggle, (although this seems to be on an upward swing at present) so they still have reputations to be proud of and produce some of the best kit.
Oops, one final quote thing. Get the contractor to quote for the prototyping quantity obviously, say 4 off discs (3+1)AND a production quantity, say 320. Then you have one figure for yourself and one for the business pitch.
It is possible to get quotes for a whole range of different quantities, or in some cases even ask for a formula that you can apply yourself, however, It's bad etiquette, especially at this early stage when you want to be cosying up to these contractors. I've been that side of the fence and for the most part they hate doing big quotes unless there's big money involved and it actually makes it look less like you might place an order and more like pure speculation (which of course it is!). This can even cause some estimators/sales people to temporarily loose their perspective and offer you a reasnoble prototyping cost at the thought of getting a bit of worthwhile business when the production order comes up. I've done it. (shh don't tell anyone). Don't make the number too round, like use 320 instead of 300, but not 323, they will sniff that out. HA. I'm such a sucker, I wonder how many people played me like that already.
Good luck.
I haven't run thru all the thread, but I'd like to suggest you contacting a company that I sometimes do rapid prototyping jobs for: http://www.acotecnica.com.br/
They are providers for many major auto-parts OEMs and I have seen from 45cm stationary engine turbos to bicycle CVTs being developed there.
Look for Caio Tavares. I can PM you his email if you like.
When I think of wind power, I don't see it as farms and farms of 5MW enormous generators, what I see are the smaller 7-10kw vertical shaft rooftop models as a much more deployable system. Considering I can get the 7kw generators from china for $1250USD each, if you look at the cost of the large generators in the tens of millions of dollars compared to the rooftop units at $1500 installed, I think the biggest bang for your buck is the smaller units.
Fortunately, there is much more profit to be made from selling a quantity item as well, and replacement/maintenance is MUCH easier...
I don't know. It will need to be a combo of both I am sure, but the home units will outsell the large commercial units 100:1 due to cost.
And thank you Riff_Raff, the world needs more engineers that are more concerned with the progress of human energy usage than about getting ripped off by patent violators, and witholding the benefits during a crisis just to make MORE bucks.
The original ALWAYS is a relevant product, especially if the quality is at maximum. As Donald Trump has said, "There will ALWAYS be a market for The Best"
Hate to bring this up riff_raff, when I'm sure you have heard it so many times before, but on the concept of torque and power transfer throught traction only, it could be wise to consider why this method is not employed elsewheres.
The other thing is that the rolling geometry between the conical rollers and discs will change as you displace said rollers radially. Compare with a tapered roller bearing, look at www.timken.com, A clean linear rolling contact will only occur at one particular radial position, everywhere else you will roll at only one point and slide along the rest of the line of contact.
Going to extremes sometimes helps the mind, imagine taking the small end of the roller all the way to the centerline of the conical disc, what will happen?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
I see what xpensive is saying, using shorter rollers would mean a greater percentage of the surface area of the roller is runing at the same speed as the disc, possibly increasing efficency, but what if the speed is constantly changing? wouldn't there be some benefit in having part of the roller overgeared (i.e the top part) and another part undergeared i.e. the bottom, or vise versa). In a way this would provide a take up effect during speed changes ala syncromesh wouldn't it? This is assuming of course that the drive speed would normalise about the centre of the roller/disc interface...
Although once again my lack of knowledge on the efficiencies and shearing effects of transmission through viscous fluids is letting me down. Damn you viscous fluids!! Damn my education! :<
