Talk:Maglev wind turbine

Efficiency claims

One of the sources quoted makes nonsensical claims of "1000 times more efficiency" - please only quote reliable and reasonable sources. Just because it's on the Web doesn't make it true. There simply isn't that much energy lost in the bearings of a wind turbine to make that sort of claim credible. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing, but on the assumption that it's a misquote, it's probably only true at low speeds. I think i'm right in saying that normal windmills don't produce any power at low speeds, whereas presumably this does, and hence produces somewhat more overall power. It obviously cannot produce 1000x more power overall though; which is what you really care about.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all about the size

The article says that one maglev windmill can replace 1000 of usual ones thanks to its size. This is why it is 1000x times more efficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.41.125.85 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I read in the reference. Think about what you're saying - a typical commercial machine is around 1.5 MW - spinning a 100+ m diameter blade set. To get 1000 times the power you'd need 1000 times the area or blades 3 KM in diameter and more! Not going to happen. Can't build an individual 1500 MW wind turbine - not in Earth's atmosphere. Maybe on Jupiter. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the title should be: Maglev wind turbine

A windmill is a wind-driven machine whose shaft power directly drives machinery such as a grain mill or a water pump. A modern windmill that generates electricity is more properly called a wind turbine. Since the article appears to describe a type of wind turbine for generating electricity, the article title should be: Maglev wind turbine. Also, the title should be singular rather than plural; see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). --Teratornis (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is vapor ware

None of the claims on the website have been vetted, they don't make any sense from a fundamental engineering equation standpoint. Frictional losses that this design claims to address are minimal in wind turbines. This reeks of an investment scam if you ask me. I would recommend this page for deletion as commercial promotion, or at least heavy editing to remove the original research. Tspine (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't even really deserving of it's own page anyway. The only difference between this and a normal WTG is the type of bearing used. There are two underlying information sources here: the Chinese Xinhua article (which could be somewhat legit) and an article that reeks of investment scam (the AZ company, claims of massive violation of fundamental laws of physics, etc). I'm merging this page into Unconventional wind turbines and doing some major verification edits and copy edits. --Digitiki (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)