Anybody want to challenge a claim on VAWT that can outperform any HAWT?

[Lion Kuntz]

Anybody want to challenge a claim on VAWT that can outperform any HAWT?

Vertical-Axis versus Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines

I just completed a spreadsheet which allows inputting to windspeed at 10 meter height and calculates the power of a novel-design VAWT windtower.

There are several sets of assumptions:

(1) That the tower goes to normal hub height of known horizontal axis turbines, i.e., 50 meters tall, 163 feet from ground to eves, a 16 story building.
(2) That the tower could be extended to the height of the top of the swept area of the rotors of a 50 meter HAWT, that is, 90 meters, a 30 story building.
(3) The diameter is first assumed to be similar dimensions to a common grain storage silo, 30 feet, by both heights.
(4) Multiples 2x, 3x and 4x diameter dimensions are also simultaniously computed for both heights.
(5) Betz Law .59 max production is included by removing 41% of the swept area power off the top in all calculations.

Here are some documents which describe some of the tower designs:
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_art/towers_prior_art.html

The first one is dated 22-jan-06, meaning this device is now unpatentable based on 1 year publication without application taken. It is in the public domain and I stand to make no more profits off developing it than anyone else. This is not a scam for investment. I'm busy with other projects and tossed this one out just to change the paradigm.

The spreadsheets are here:
http://H2-PV.us/1/Eagle_Roost.sxc
http://H2-PV.us/1/Eagle_Roost.xls

They are essentially the same. The ".sxc" version is OpenOffice.org freeware compatible, the ".xls" is monopoly office compatible with Excel for the freedom-impaired.

There's two numbers highlighted in yellow background. One you don't touch unless you really really need to recompute air pressure density for someplace not at sea level.

The second one is the master input for the spreadsheet and calls on that other variable, so messing with one changes everything else.

The MILES PER HOUR cell is preset to 10 miles per hour winds initially, at 10 meters height under normal location siting conditions. At ten miles per hour high power generators do not budge. They have so much weight that the wind force cannot start them moving.

This tower -- called Eagle's Roost because it is bird friendly, with no moving parts outside -- would be operating at 10 miles per hour.

It is impossible to foresee the exact power production, but it would be over 25% up to maybe 50% of the figures shown as SUM for the 1st stack and second stack. That means it would be putting into the grid between 16 to 33 kilowatts in the stack up to hub height, and if full height the 2nd stack would be inputting between 30 to 60 more.

The wider diameter towers at bottom, which are still inside the diameters of standard silo grainary buildings, show alternatively that 132 or additionally 260 kilowatts more kilowatts would be feeding the grid.

Normally, after subtracting Betz from Swept area the net 34% efficiency gensets turn out to be 59% efficient, with losses from resistance, friction and reactance being the big leeches.

I am at least justified in saying that 25% to 50% efficient is plausible by that standard.

What is different between regular gensets and this concept is there are NO gears, no crankshaft, so friction is minimalized. There's no reason to assume resistence or reactance is any higher either.

There are stacked generators. At higher levels, one per segment, at lower-wind lower-levels, perhaps two or three layers are ganged to one generator. That means the lower stack is six or five generators stacked on individual stories, and their individual ratings would be summed. The lighter gensets have lower mass inertia to overcome and therefore move more freely under lower wind force.

The EFFECTIVE wind speed is 1.8 times actual windspeed, and that means that the force available, although smaller, focuses on a much lighter target.

At higher winds, the kinds that normally produce the nameplate rated power of HAWTs, the tower out-produces them.

This page, table three shows the windspeed and actual production of several real HAWTs.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/rea_issues/wind.html#t3

At 20 mph winds based on 10 meter height measure, not one of the HAWTs has gotten into it's main production range yet.

At 25.9 mph based on 10 meter height measure, 11.6 m/s, the lowest speed in the table, the VAWT is outproducing the rated power of the best HAWT at only HUB HEIGHT in the 120 foot diameter version. The 30 foot diameter double stacked full height is out-producing three of the five of the HAWTs.

The 120 foot diameter model is approaching 4 megawatts fed into the grid at the same engineering efficiency expectations of 59% after deducting Betz' Tithe.

At 35.3 mph, at 10 meters, 38 mph at hub height, the best of the HAWTs is producing 1.65 MW, but the littlest half-height tower is feeding 1.3 MW. The 32 story building, with no moving parts outside is selling 11.7 megawatts of electricity at the same height, same wind. That's seven times as much NET GRID power from the VAWT as the HAWT.

Because we all agree that power smoothing is desirable, some gensets in the tower can be dedicated to making pure DC from homopolar generators and electrolyzing water for hydrogen fuel cells. The hydrogen economy is going to be needing a 10:1 ratio of power going into electrolysis compared to what goes into the grid for electric consumption. These towers can generate AC and DC simultaneously.

Redesign of the gensets to make DC high current instead of AC actually reduces lots of weight, reduces inertia, reduces complexity. All you have to do is get a copper disc spinning over a bed of permanent magnets and you output pure DC. NO coils, no gears, no crankshaft.

So. Who wants to find my mistakes in the spreadsheet, if any, or dispute my logic?

The tower itself is a cylinder, an extremely strong shape. The combination of exterior shell plus several additional concentric circular layers inside adds to the stability. The exterior is made of repetition of modules around a circle, then repetition of layers stacked one on top of the next. The exterior modules are made of exactly four planes meeting at defined angles -- there is no mystery at all how to build these things. A prototype out of plywood is easily fabricated. Wind tunnel models are a piece of cake.

If I was making them, I would use some FRP, fiber-reinforced-plastic, maybe engineered bundles of fibers including some carbon fibers, some fiberglass, some cheap PVA. Then the modules can be winched up easily by local labor, instead of specialists who use giant cranes and travel state-to-state.

Likewise the gensets. All repetition of small modules which can be fabricated in thousands of locations from here to Bangladesh. If one stack layer goes offline for maintenance, the rest keep producing, with hardly a blip to the total production until one part can be swapped out for another. Irising the windows shuts down any layer independently.

That's my challenge. Pick it to pieces.

Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
Sonoma County, California, USA.

[Stewart Corman]

Anybody want to challenge a claim on VAWT that can outperform any HAWT?

just read here and weep:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28410.pdf

this was tooooo easy

Stew Corman from sunny Endicott

[Lion Kuntz]

just read here and weep:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28410.pdf

this was tooooo easy

Stew Corman from sunny Endicott

If this paragraph is what you stand on for crowing like a rooster, you failed to understand how my tower corrects every one of these defects...

"Although VAWTs have the advantage of a drivetrain close to the ground for easy accessibility, their cost-effectiveness does not equal that of HAWTs for reasons not fully documented. Aerodynamically, VAWTs utilize less efficient symmetric airfoils than the higher lift-to-drag ratio, cambered airfoils used on HAWTs. The constant chord, VAWT blades adversely affected blade efficiency and self-start capability. Rotor wake-induced losses of the VAWTs are greater than those of HAWTs since VAWTs only operate at optimum lift-to-drag ratio over a small azimuth of the rotation. This leads to excessive wind energy going into rotor thrust loads rather than useful power output. The highly cyclic power and thrust generated by VAWT rotors also results in higher fatigue loads. In addition, the VAWTs lack of a characteristic tower eliminates most of the additional energy available higher up due to wind shear. In comparison to a HAWT, a VAWT also tends to be a lower-rpm machine that derives power more from torque than rpm, which results in greater machine weight and cost. For HAWTs, almost all the performance enhancers resulted in greater cost than does a modest increase in blade radius to achieve the same energy improvement. Most performance enhancers, such as circular concentrators and diffusers, made it difficult to cost effectively address the hurricane design load condition."

(1) The airfoils are not symetrical. They don't have to be because the return stroke is protected from the wind, so they can be maximized to catch the wind with less interest in fighting against the wind on the return side.

(2) Because of #1, the airfoil is far more efficient than HAWTs or VAWTs that have to be exposed to the full wind on the full swept area.

(3) Constant chord does not apply.

(4) Self-start is only an issue at very low winds, well below the self-start of HAWTs.

(5) There are far less wake drag with this design than any others proposed or built -- the issues relate to the return stroke against the wind and do not apply here.

(6) "Excessive wind energy going into rotor thrust loads rather than useful power output" incorrect. The jettisoning of weight per rotor assembly reduces inertial forces -- no driveshaft, no gears, low friction -- MORE power goes to generation than turning heavy masses with excessive friction.

(7) Higher fatigue loads are baloney. Props go through double to quadruple wind forces between the top and bottom portion of every stoke. The taller they are, the higher the differential between the 10 meter wind, the 50 meter hub and the 90 meter peak height. Protected VAWT windcatchers can be optimized to have reinforcements on the backsides which never face the wind ever, so they don't even have to be streamlined.

(8) "Lack of tower" is baloney. These are towers and they go as high as your pocketbook allows. Set on skyscrapers in cities they have inherent safety of no ice-throw, no blade throw hazards.

Built to the same height as a HAWT, I have computed with a spreadsheet that a 120 foot diameter tower 90 meters up to the same height as a HAWT peak blade tip would generate 11.7 megawatts of power in the exact same winds that the HAWT generates 1.7 MW. That's 10 extra MW without going one inch higher in the precise same wind speed.

(9) Lower RPMs is bogus. Electricity is not generated by RPMs -- it is generated by moving coils of conductor past magnetic fields or vice versa. RPMs is one way of doing that, but not exclusive, or even best. The circular ring linear inductive generators of the tower are generating electricity as they move at any speed. If the stator magnets are rollers which rotate as the ring moves over it, there is high rpms in the changing magnetic flux because their diameters are so small. You have the combined effects of both stator fields and rotor coils moving simultaneously.

A number of designs of HAWTs convert all electricity to DC then invert it again to AC for power grid conditioning to adjust for the variable speed RPMs. Under those conditions, a unipolar (homopolar, monopolar) generator makes direct AC high current low voltage. If hydrogen storage is desired this is perfectly matched to electrolysis requirements. Because each level is a separate generator, both AC and DC can be generated from the same tower simultaneously.

(10) Tower stability in extreme winds conditions ("hurricane design load condition") is a structural engineering problem, not a power production issue. Cylindrical structures are the most stable form -- why do you suppose they make HAWT support towers cylindrical?. This particular design has concentric structures one behind another.


HA! If this is the best challenge to the VAWT Eagle's Roost towers, we might as well start building them. After all, you can't show me a design for a HAWT that gets 11.7 MW from a 50 meter hub height and 40 meter prop lengths, not even theoretically on paper.

Now if there is a defect in the spreadsheet, let me know and I'll fix it. Despite what you heard of malicious code hiding in Excel or Office spreadsheets, this was done using OpenOffice.org and output to M$ compatible -- it isn't affected by the M$ viruses and doesn't contain any.

http://h2-pv.us/H2T/Eagle_Roost.sxc (OO.o)
http://h2-pv.us/H2T/Eagle_Roost.xls (M$ excel)
http://h2-pv.us/H2T/Eagle_Roost10mph.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2T/Eagle_Roost36mph.html

I saved two runs as 10 mph and 36 mph winds (at 10 meter heights) as webpage .html files.

At 10 mph the formulas compute the VAWT would make 462,865 watts while your HAWT is dead still. At 36 mph winds at 10 meters height the VAWT is projected to be making 12,415,716 watts at not one inch taller than the HAWT.

That 12.4 MW is AFTER subtracting Betz, after equating it to the 59% percent efficiency of your average HAWT (which is really 34% efficient overall).

Since the wind towers upgrade weak winds one full class, they generate power in lower winds. Any tower that runs twice the number of hours per year producing half the power is equal to one that generates twice the power for half the hours. This tower increase the number of hours of operation PLUS runs in lower winds PLUS runs in higher winds when the HAWTs have to shut off and feather.

You have to do much much better than you did. You failed your first attempt to challenge the Eagle's Roost Champion.

Want to try again?

Here's an easier problem: which would produce more power
(1) China's $100 billion Three Gorges Dam, or
(2) Spending the same $100 billion on polycrystal PV @ 13% efficiency inverted AC (12 watts/sq.ft).

If you chose #2, bonus question: at what price per watt fully installed systems cost would the PV produce more power for lower cost?
(2a) $6/watt
(2b) $5.5/watt
(2c) $5/watt
(2d) $4/watt
(2e) $3/watt

NO PEEKING...
http://h2-pv.us/H2T/3GorgesDam.sxc (OO.o)
http://h2-pv.us/H2T/3GorgesDam.xls (M$ excel)
http://h2-pv.us/H2T/3GorgesDam.html

Want to try your luck on a new challenge?

What year does the very last legal gallon of gasoline ever on earth get sold as the H2-PV Economy takes over?
(1) 2017
(2) 2048

[Stewart Corman]

Lion, you spent time defending your postion, so I decided to respond

OK, I spent a few minutes looking at your downloads and I was a bit confused in the Excel file : tower height 10->50 ??? is it 10 or 50? rhetorical q

That said, you want to verify your cals?
I had posted an Excel file earlier, but here is the updated version attached.
Use sheet 1

Unless I don't understand ..you are talking about a cylindrical column ie 30 ft in diameter and x ft high ..lets pick 30 feet high

Then the "swept area" is simply 30x30 feet (profile to the wind) = 900 sq ft
If it were a HAWT, then the equiv would be 33.85 ft ..call it 34 feet

I filled out the Excel with some of your stats (numbers in bold):

at 10 mph, that swept area has a total wind energy of 4.6 KWatts

choose a TRS of 1.0, and you can get your rpm at any WS, which for 30ft diam at 10mph is 9.34rpm

Of couse, if you note any errors in my cals, I will review and fix

Stew Corman

[Lion Kuntz]

Lion, you spent time defending your position, so I decided to respond

OK, I spent a few minutes looking at your downloads and I was a bit confused in the Excel file : tower height 10->50 ??? is it 10 or 50? rhetorical q

The first 10 meters is unused base, ground turbulence boundary area. The 10 meters to 50 meters represent the wind area available at increments specified of a first tower stack that goes to hub height of the big HAWTs. 14 divisions of 40 meters is 2.86 meters, or 9.35 feet height per story (per level) -- that was my estimate of minimum required room for equipment and human maintenance workers. Extending upwards, a second stack was computed that finishes going the height to the peak rotor tip sweep of a prop, 50 to 90 meters. The functional area is 10 meters above ground to 90 meters. The wind increases are stepped by increments given so that from 10 meters power is doubled to 50 meters height in even increments, and incremented in like steps to double the power again at 90 meters height from ground.

Hold the vertical dimensions unchanged but choose from four diameters 30, 60, 90, 120 feet.

The height x the diameter is the profile confronting the wind, which is conventionally called the "swept area". The routes possible for the wind are left, right or through. 40% (the left side is rejected completely) and plays no part in power generation. It has been subtracted out in my formulas, labeled 'Betz'. The remainder is not restricted from entry into the tower. It does however have to enter constricted openings. The amount of entering the openings is the 59%. The openings it enters are reduced in size meaning that the number of molecules has not changed, but the rate of speed must increase if all the molecules are to pass in the same amount of time. That is the 1.8 speed increase factor given. 1.8 = 100% of the air going through openings 55% of the swept area. This is highly adjustable number and picked out of a hat as a starting point.



That said, you want to verify your cals?
I had posted an Excel file earlier, but here is the updated version attached.
Use sheet 1

Unless I don't understand ..you are talking about a cylindrical column ie 30 ft in diameter and x ft high ..lets pick 30 feet high


No let's not. Your miniature dimensions produce miniature results. They do not confirm or disconfirm anything I wrote. You specifically do not address the funneling of the wind through smaller apertures. The numbers on my tower spreadsheet are unimpressive at low wind speeds and low heights. Choosing some puny numbers to compare to 90 meters HAWTs is not any kind of comparison to anything -- compare apples to apples, not watermelons to grapes.


Then the "swept area" is simply 30x30 feet (profile to the wind) = 900 sq ft
If it were a HAWT, then the equiv would be 33.85 ft ..call it 34 feet

I filled out the Excel with some of your stats (numbers in bold):

at 10 mph, that swept area has a total wind energy of 4.6 KWatts

choose a TRS of 1.0, and you can get your rpm at any WS, which for 30ft diam at 10mph is 9.34rpm

Of couse, if you note any errors in my cals, I will review and fix

Stew Corman

At low speeds and low to the ground your numbers are not far off from my numbers. 3,209 watts 3.2 kW is what my spreadsheet produced for the lowest power generator 10 to 13 meters off the ground, which is 27 m2 swept area, 17 m2 effective area times 1.8 wind speed due to constricted entry.

To be completely fair I threw away another 41% at the bottom to bring my generators into the same par with HAWT effective efficiency. You see, there are two columns in bold type at the bottom, the left one is the raw numbers, the second one on the right is the numbers after taking off Betz Law the SECOND TIME. If you look up top you see the .59 where I reduced by Betz the first time to get a constant? Than I took off a second Betz at the bottom again. The reason I did that was because HAWTs are 34% efficient, which just so happens to be Betz squared. The second "Betz" is friction, inertia, parasitic power losses, reactance, blah blahbla. The reality is engineering is not perfect. If that's how much THEY LOSE, I handicapped myself to the same extent.

Now a completely unrelated issue is rotation speed. Wind does not generate electricity -- passing coils through a magnetic field generates electricity. Rotation does not in itself generate electricity -- again, passing coils through a magnetic field generates electricity.

The inner diameter may be 78 feet in circumference. That is a circular linear inductive generator. The issue is not how many times that circular disk makes a complete rotation but how many conductors cut how much magnetic lines of flux per second.

You are illustrating the prison your paradigm has built around your thinking. At ten miles per hour the wind is moving 14.7 feet per second. That is half of one rotation of a 28 foot diameter disk. You conceive in such small diameters that you have to make several or many complete rotations to travel 14.7 feet from your starting point. In the end 14.7 feet of distance of conductors crossing magnetic flux is achieved by the big and the little alike. You are not accepting basic physical principles of electricity generation: it's not rotation and it's not wind speed. The whole thing is applying maximum force to move the lightest contraption carrying conductors over magnets cutting the most lines of force per unit of time.

You got lost. You thought rotation was the goal. You thought more rotation was somehow better than smarter rotation.

You need to get back to Newton's Laws. Equal and opposite forces. And Ohm's Laws.

You need kinetic energy focussed on lightweight cups attached to minimal weight conductors moving over bigger magnets. If you put the magnets as rollers so that they rotate you can increase the generation of power, because electric power is relative to the number of flux lines cutting conductors per unit of time. Rotating magnets move flux lines through space: with the magnets rotating AND the conductors moving over them you automatically get more power generated from the exact same equipment.

The tower SLICES and DICES the winds. It uses canyon effect to accelerate the wind. There is minimal drag: the oncoming wind never sees anything but the concave side and is blocked by tower vanes from hitting any convex surfaces. Inside is a bullet-train going round and round and round. Every car is connected to the one in front of it in an endless circle. Looking down, every tower generator layer looks like a bagel with the outside perimeter neatly sliced vertically away. Looking in the window it looks like chambers in a nautilus shell. The wind streaming in the windows is nozzles spraying air power onto surfaces designed to recurve that air in a new direction. None of the exiting air confronts the incoming air. It's all translated into impulse power, rocket power in reality that is all torqued in one unified direction.

You are stuck in the propeller age, while I am discussing rocket concepts of controlled impulse power on optimally shaped surfaces for rockets, not propellers.

It's all identical module components. The generators are not one huge monolith but lots of small units whose power is added together downstream. That's on one level, duplicated again and again on the other levels. Each generator unit on a disk can be swapped out fast and easily, repaired at the local electrical repair shop or alternator rebuilder shop.

In the very simplest incarnation there's nothing but a disk, with windcatchers mounted on it, which is a thin sheet of copper. No windings at all. It's called a Faraday Disc and millions of dollars are spent learning how to make them to use for mass ejectors for combat tanks or moon colonization. The big problem to date is they make so much power they always melt. Other names for the Faraday Disc are unipolar, homopolar, monopolar generators. They don't make much voltage but they make megaamperes of current -- that's what you want if you are electrolysing aluminum next door or making a Hydrogen Economy.


Because the "bagel bullet-train nautilus shell" is modular, pieces can be lifted off by manual labor because they are lightweight carbon-composites, but once assembled they function as a monolith to distribute forces. They don't have to be heavy to be strong, and they are never going to be hammered by a sudden crosswind so they don't need to have extra weight to cover that contingency. Because they are modular, one mold not only makes every identical piece in every level of the tower, but makes identical pieces for more towers. The level of skill required is minimal, commonplace. This is the lowest level of technology that can be practiced from here to Bangladesh.

[Stewart Corman]

You are stuck in the propeller age, while I am discussing rocket concepts of controlled impulse power on optimally shaped surfaces for rockets, not propellers.



OK, << Text removed by Admin >> Anyone, ANYONE can devise a great paper project ...many are even perpetual motion machines ..they also SHOULD work!

When you have DATA that shows you have anything other than verbiage, then those of us "stuck in the propeller age" can evaluate your outrageous claims.
I will have data shortly ..paraphrasing: "Data talks, BS walks!"

<< Text removed by Admin >>

You won't see me responding to anymore of your posts.

Stew Corman from sunny Endicott

[Lion Kuntz]

Naughty-Naughty potty language. The challenge was to find specific fault with the VAWT proposal, not an invitation to engage in a pissing contest of skunks.


I stayed on my side of the line of propriety, with spreadsheet math, pictures, equations.

I used published accepted standards of performance from credible websites who do these researches professionally over lifetime careers.

I discussed commercial power generation sized units, elevated into the wind strata where big operators put theirs.

You tried to shrink it down and put it in the lowest wind stream possible, never trying to compare what's installed with what is proposed as a better option.

You wanted to compare some home wind-turbine for farmer's water pumping, as if that's ever going to make a difference in the rate of environmental destruction by selfish anarchists who won't curb their pollution no matter how many scientists warn them they must.

You can't build your home turbines without a civilization backing you, making wires and metallurgy and inverter electronics that you can't build in your barn.

You have a stake in the success of civilization even as you assert your independence from it. You can't type to me without electronics you don't know how to create. You OWE society for your standard of living, even if you live "off-grid". You have a stake in final outcome, and you have responsibility if it fails.


<< Quoted message removed by Admin >>

[Rob Beckers]

People please keep this discussion civilized!

Inflammatory language will not be tolerated. Keep in mind that if you disagree you can choose not to answer and simply withdraw from this thread.

-Rob-

[Paul Bailey]

Found this on the net a few years back . Its small size was Supposed to collect power in its 3rd dimension. Any Comments?? Paul

[Ralph Smith]

Do you have a URL?

[Paul Bailey]

Search out Windwandler on the net to see what you come up with. Never seen one personally .Of course they claimed lots of power for a small area .I know better than this but if you get energy from that 3rd dimension ..who Knows .Paul

[Mark Parsons]

Greetings Lion,

I can appreciate the mental excercising and design skills you've completed to bring your concept to the stage you presented here.

I am no expert in this area, but I am an avid student of physics. I apply physics daily in my career. I have been dabbling lately in manufacturing and testing a small scale HAWT and VAWT. My goal is to determine if a VAWT can be applied at lower altitudes and acheive a similar power output based on similar swept area. My application is to have them both supply some of the power for my off-grid cottage so a lengthy study can take place. I flew my HAWT for the first time at the cottage this weekend. Winds were very low so not much power was generated. Always fun to watch something spinning though.

My VAWT is a Savonius design. The blade design is a Lissajous profile. Over the next couple of weekends I will be completing construction and starting the testing phase.

I have not studied or analyzed your calculations. I apologize up front for not digging into your data referenced so some of my assertions may be redundant. I assume you know that a Savonius swept area is 1/2 its cross section since 1/2 the machine is turning directly into the wind. A Savonius has difficulty acheiving a TSR of much more than 1. Most experienced Savonius VAWT builders use a TSR of 0.5 for loaded conditions. Betz limit reaches a maximum of 59% only for TSR numbers greater than about 7. The Betz limit for TSR of 1 is about 33%. Reference link figure 6 - http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~nate/AES/Wind_Theory_II.pdf
Based on this upper limit then subtract blade design inefficiency, power transmission and alternator losses it is easy to see why this technology has been shunned in most commercial applications. A few commercial operations however seem to have thrived mostly in the H-Rotor arena except for Windside and a couple of new arrivals. http://www.windside.com/

I have difficulty grasping why TSR has an effect on Betz. Betz proves that you cannot harvest all the energy in a moving fluid as the exit stream wouldn't be moving and therefore couldn't exit the machine. That is easily understandable, but why a TSR component?

Your design is very elegant. A lot of details would need to be ironed out. One of the first is proving the concept. Any plans to elaborate on your designs with a scale model for testing?

Regards,
Mark.