
Gravitation water vortex power plant - hliyan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_water_vortex_power_plant
======
nitrogen
Microhydroelectric has come up on HN before:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6895582](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6895582)

This open design looks interesting, but there are a couple oddities in the
Wikipedia article I'd appreciate clarification on from a subject matter
expert:

 _> It was first patented by Greek-Australian Lawyer & Inventor Paul Kouris in
1996[1], who was searching for a way to harness the power inherent in a
vortex._

What power is inherent in a vortex apart from gravitational potential energy
being converted to kinetic energy?

 _> after a year of use its operation cost was approximately one US dollar per
Watt capacity of output._

Shouldn't that be installation cost, not operating cost?

~~~
btrettel
Fluid dynamicist here. Your understanding is correct. I would not read
anything into vague statements like "the power inherent in a vortex". That
explanation is basically woo. There's nothing special about vortices. The
large vortex used here is sustained by the gravitational potential energy, as
you said.

The Wikipedia article read a bit like an advertisement to me.

I don't suspect the Coriolis force of the Earth contributes much to this
turbine either, though I admit I don't know much about the Coriolis force in
fluid dynamics. For objects of the size shown, Coriolis forces are neglected
in my experience.

Edit: Wikipedia backs me up on the Coriolis force being negligible. Aside from
starting the rotation in the cited tests (something needs to break the
symmetry), the Coriolis force is negligible compared against gravity. In the
turbine case I believe turbulence would break the symmetry (the turbulence
itself being influenced by imperfections in the flow, surfaces, vibrations,
etc.).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Draining_in_bat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Draining_in_bathtubs_and_toilets)

~~~
keenerd
Ignoring the BS about coriolis, I think there is something legit here.

Of course there isn't any power to be gained from the vortex. What you would
gain is a lot of RPMs from very little head. It makes the system be high speed
and low torque. The dynamos would be higher voltage (lower amperage), the
wiring and inverters are cheaper with lower amperage, and the structure
doesn't have to be as strong since the torques are lower. It might even
automatically safe during floods, since too much water entering it would
distrupt the vortex and halt the wheel.

It is more like a clever hydraulic gearbox that potentially makes all the
other components less expensive. Or am I completely off base? The water is
spinning around faster than it would be flowing out, correct?

~~~
princekolt
This other company[1] built a prototype of a low-cost vortex in Chile, and
claims it produces 15Kw consistently with a drop of 2-3m. If true that's
fantastic. As suggested in their video, they could could build several of
those in a row because they don't need a massive reservoir.

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3p2e1-kN4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3p2e1-kN4)

------
lumberingjack
I have one of these on my property the previous owner built it. It takes quite
a bit of maintenance to keep working properly, every 3-4 days I have to hike
up the trail 15 mins to clear debris. If it rains then I have to clear that
day. Also it is sorta scary, it's basically a drowning machine a few years ago
I had to build a cover for it to keep wildlife from getting trapped. One of
the best things I like about it is that it doesn't seem to effect fish any
they come and go up and down stream freely.

------
8bitsrule
Usages are comparable to a hydraulic ram (which has been around for a long
time). Probably less expensive because of the simplicity. Clever.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram)

"The hydraulic ram is sometimes used in remote areas, where there is both a
source of low-head hydropower and a need for pumping water to a destination
higher in elevation than the source."

~~~
princekolt
I wanted to mention hydraulic rams too! I think they're easily one of the most
ingenious and clever mechanical devices ever invented. It's too bad they're
not practical for large scale systems.

------
cagenut
here's a good 2m30s youtube that shows 15kW one in action:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3p2e1-kN4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3p2e1-kN4)

its amazing how little there is to it, and how relatively quiet it is.

~~~
exabrial
Interesting, this is a bit different design... it appears water has to "fall
through" that turbine, rather than using the "stirring force" per the
wikipedia article.

~~~
patcheudor
Not really the same at all. The gravitation water vortex power plant is
designed in such a way that fish can easily go through in both directions
because the turbine is in the upper, not lower portion of the vortex, leaving
the drain clear for fish (and a certain extent, debris) to pass through. This
is just a turbine installed in the drain. It's really not much different than
a traditional hydro plant.

------
ConcernedCoder
I don't think there's any more water power being converted into rotational
force ( via the vortex ), then there would be using any number of conventional
[water
turbine]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine))
designs, like those used at, for example, the [Hoover
Dam]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity)).

~~~
usrusr
Once you remove the inhabitat.com-style magical thinking (coriolis, vortex),
the main selling points are being fish-friendly and that all the technological
bits are in a single package conveniently accessible above water level.

------
feedbeef
A couple more interesting things come to mind:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_valve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_valve)

Also see: Viktor Schauberger (caution: will take you down quite a rabbit
hole).

~~~
siliconunit
wow, definitely a rabbit hole! the whole Schauberger family it seems..
interesting stuff, thanks!

------
mannykannot
In general arrangement, it looks rather like a downsized, simplified Francis
turbine.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_turbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_turbine)

~~~
Piezoid
You're right. The main selling point of both turbines is the axial flow: the
velocity differences between the water and the blades are the same on every
sides of the turbine. The shear forces are low enough to let wildlife pass
through unharmed (supposing that it's not heavily torqued by a high electric
loads).

------
cybrox
This has been around in Switzerland for a while. Sadly, the company running it
(the first of its kind here) went bankrupt

[https://www.srf.ch/news/regional/aargau-
solothurn/wasserwirb...](https://www.srf.ch/news/regional/aargau-
solothurn/wasserwirbel-kraftwerk-schoeftland-kritik-am-konkurs)

------
hbk1966
With such a drop required could you harness a tide to produce power. Like
maybe allow the tide to fill San Francisco Bay and harness it when it recedes.

------
mkagenius
Can someone hint why this is different from the usual stuff like falling water
on turbines? Perhaps this is more efficient?

~~~
oh_sigh
This is good for low hydraulic head scenarios(basically, where the water
doesn't have that much room to fall). With this system you can install it even
if water only falls 2 feet, whereas more traditional turbines might need 6-10
feet

~~~
analognoise
Yeah but that just means there's less power there to begin with, so not really
economical or useful.

~~~
mikepurvis
I don't think that's necessarily true. Couldn't you make up for it on volume?
I can picture scenarios where you'd have a lot of water falling a small
distance and it would be more convenient to install something like this than
to use a site with a lesser amount of water falling a larger distance.

~~~
bencompanion
Absolutely. The potential power is _water mass/sec * head height * g_ - more
water volume is just as valuable as more head height.

Actually, looking at that calculation, I wonder how much the fact that this
turbine doesn't introduce cavitation (bubbles) affects the efficiency. The
water would be more dense, which would theoretically improve output... no idea
if enough to worry about, though.

------
alexchamberlain
Stupid question time: could this be used in sewage systems or similar to
generate energy from us flushing the loo?

~~~
manigandham
Of course, its just harnessing gravity pulling down water to spin a turbine.

There are _many_ cases where energy can be harnessed in daily activities, the
biggest issue is the efficiency and cost of doing so. Most plumbing use
wouldn't add up to nearly enough energy to offset the construction.

~~~
alexchamberlain
My original question was very nearly: can this be used in guttering? I figured
that the non-constant flow would probably make it uneconomical.

~~~
ProblemFactory
Technically yes. But there just isn't enough potential energy in the water
falling on a typical house.

For example, US average yearly rainfall of 76cm, on a 10m*15m roof, at height
of two stories at 5 meters, would give you 1.5kWh of energy per year. That's
enough to run the appliances in your home for an hour.

You might be in a more rainy location, or have a larger home, but the end
result is still insignificantly small.

------
UncleEntity
Back in '95 or so I saw someone who used an old turbo (well, half a turbo) to
the same effect during a field trip in one of my "appropriate engineering"
classes. I guess it was (is?) enough of a thing they figured out the formulas
to size the turbo vs the water head &etc.

Much smaller scale but along with a little solar and a little wind they were
100% off the grid.

------
gweinberg
I'm dumb as a post, I can't understand why some fancy vortex thing will get
you more power than an ordinary water wheel.

~~~
jarfil
A water wheel can not have more than 75% of the blades in contact with water
at any point (or it would slow it down) and it is rarely practical to have
more than 30% of the blades in contact with water.

A turbine in a vortex has 100% water-blade contact all the time, which means
it can transfer more power with a smaller size and cheaper materials.

------
GoToRO
And you can use it as a washing machine
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akJ9Zo5hhM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akJ9Zo5hhM8)

------
m3kw9
Seem cheaper and less complex + maintenance with solar.

~~~
martyvis
But with solar you only have maybe 10 hours of generation per day at best, so
you need to store the energy ( which has inefficiencies) or a grid that can
cover many timezones. Using stored water for potential energy means it can be
turned on and used as needed, and rated for an average use. In Australia there
are plans for more stored energy systems using pumps and generators, probably
fed by solar and wind.

~~~
usrusr
Stored hydro isn't the realm of vortex turbines because they cannot be
reversed, and because they excel at high volume/low drop. Pumped storage
prefers high drop/low volume because losses from evaporation and seepage don't
scale with height.

Vortex turbines are for tapping a creek or the canals left behind by a pre-
steam ways mill that would otherwise be uneconomical to harvest, or where
ecological impact of other installations would be too high.

------
odammit
We used to make these in our above ground pool when I was a kid by running in
circles.

------
gigatexal
73% sounds really efficient. How does it compare to other power plants?

~~~
ginko
Large hydroelectric plants can apparently have efficiencies of over 90%[1].
Smaller ones somewhere between 80% and 90%.

[1]
[http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm#comparison](http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm#comparison)

~~~
gigatexal
Shoot never mind then. Perhaps the appeal here is how efficient they can be
while also being small scale.

------
peter_retief
This is so weird, I had a dream 2 nights ago of this very thing, a steady
state hydrocyclone that had a steady state net power output and clean water!!

