# honeywell wind generator



## frank (Dec 16, 2008)

Hey all, Check this rascal out! 2kw wind turbine....Should be in ace hardware stores soon. Looks like a winner to me!

http://www.earthtronics.com/honeywell.aspx


----------



## byexample (Aug 28, 2009)

Well, isn't that cool. Thanks for the link!


----------



## SolarGary (Sep 8, 2005)

Hi,
The 2500 KWH per year in 9mph winds for a 6 ft diameter turbine seems very suspect to me.

If you use the rough DOE formula for estimating yearly wind energy output:
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/electricity/index.cfm/mytopic=11020

You get:

AEO = (0.01328)(D^2)(V^3) = (0.01328)(6^2)(9^3) = 348 KWH per year

Even if this design is a bit more efficient than others (which is doubtful) its a long ways from 350 KWH/yr to 2500 KWH/yr?

Gary


----------



## roachhill (Jul 8, 2009)

Northern Tool already has the Honeywell turbine in the new catalog. It's not cheap though.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

I saw that a year or so ago being used in Asia,they had all sorts of configs for em,like a bunch of small ones in connected arrays and such.

They were having good results from what I read,an interesting design.

Love it,thinking outside the box,flat out love it!

Give it some real world experience then I want one,wow!!!!


----------



## byexample (Aug 28, 2009)

Thanks for the tip on Northern Tool... just got their catalog couple days ago. Yikes, they are listing this turbine at $4600. That's pretty steep for 2500 watts in my opinion. I do like the design, gearless operation, and the fact that it doesn't require a pole or tower. That's kinda cool.

Don't see us being able to afford something like this anytime in the foreseeable future. Would have to come down into the $2000 - $2500 range before I'd consider it.


----------



## ChristieAcres (Apr 11, 2009)

I am trying to get my DH to build one, but he is so busy with projects stacked up around here, maybe next year? No, he won't consider purchasing what he can build himself. Of course, that is why he is stacked up with projects!


----------



## WisJim (Jan 14, 2004)

A real 2500 watt turbine would be a steal at $4600. However, this isn't a proven design, and based on the area of it, I would have to agree with SolarGary's annual output figures. Looks like another scam to me.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Ah yes another product from Mich. . . . . . . sad to say

Didn't any of you read the fine print .?!?!

...."Product Warranty will be validated - only- if installed by a certified contractor."

...."Fluid Marketing Strategies Inc. has been selected to oversee and develop the Certification and Training Program".

...."One full day certification course is - $325."

Yup you can mount it on a roof top . . . .never mind the surrounding trees which are taller.
Yup it starts turning in 2mph winds.
Yup it does not want to see winds higher than 41mph.
Yup you can buy it (maybe) at your local hardware store and install it your self . . . . .(with out any warranty)
Yup a *marketing strategies* bunch of sweet hearts will tell you how to turn a wrench to install it.

Sign here to receive further propaganda about this wonder product.




Sounds to me like its far better than sliced bread................?!?!


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

Unless I made a mistake (highly likely) the power for a 6' rotor in "class 3" winds of 12.5mph is 291 watts. Betz limit is 59%, so if you use 40% for a good turbine, then its only 116 watts.

Simple test: is it mounted to a roof? its a scam.
Does it produce more than the betz limit? its a scam.

SolarGary's calcs come up with 40 watt output for 9mph.

Yet another nice looking product that ignores reality.

Michael


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

I'll file this one away with all of the small wind gennies tested here.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=318232&highlight=wind

Before they start thinking outside the box they need to learn what is in the box. There's a reason why all large turbines look the way they do.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Reminds me of threads about putting water in gas tank and motor runs..but oil companies bought up the technology....40w will run a light 25w bulb for 1 hr.(with inverter inefficency)


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

So the 100+ year old company called Honeywell and the generator a product of theirs commands no respect whatsoever? Seems to me that you folk are awfully quick to condemn before even seeing stats/tests of this design of unit.

Personally I'll give Honeywell a chance to demonstrate and prove their product before brushing it aside just because some old efficiency tables say it can't be done. After all men can't go to the moon either or have human powered flight.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Im inclined to agree with you Windy,but Im also I'll believe it when its PROVEN,Im not going to spend 5 Grand and be a tester so to speak.

I love the innovative design.


----------



## idahodave (Jan 20, 2005)

So it makes 2000 kWh a year...(from their website)

Or at $0.08 per kWh a $160 worth of electricity...

It costs about $5,000 so it will take over 30 years to pay back just the purchase price.....without interest expense. $5,000 in the bank at 3% would make $150 a year. Think this thing will last for 30 years?

This assumes the published numbers are good, but as others have pointed out, there might be a few discrepancies, and the 2000 kWh figure is overly optimistic. 

Maybe this is why everyone isn't too excited.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

> ....starting-up in wind speeds as low as 2 mph (3km/h) and remaining operational through 42mph (68km/h). Traditional turbines rarely start turning before 7.5 mph (12 km/h) and shutdown by 29 mph (47 km/h) to protect their mechanical systems....


Anyone want to bet that the rated 2.5kw output is at 42mph winds?

How about a little poll of those that have wind gennies. Does your traditional turbine completely shut down in 29mph winds?

While Honeywell was once a great company and 30 years ago I would not have had a second thought about the quality of any of there products, today they are a complete different creature. To stay alive they have been selling there name to promote any product they think can make a buck.

The green industry is really hot right now. Investment wise it's in the same place the dotcoms were a few years ago. Remember what happened to them?


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

Windy in Kansas said:


> So the 100+ year old company called Honeywell and the generator a product of theirs commands no respect whatsoever? Seems to me that you folk are awfully quick to condemn before even seeing stats/tests of this design of unit.
> 
> Personally I'll give Honeywell a chance to demonstrate and prove their product before brushing it aside just because some old efficiency tables say it can't be done. After all men can't go to the moon either or have human powered flight.


I did some more research into this thing, as well as some more calculations. If nothing else, they are really trying to mislead everyone.

"Class 3" winds. If you use the chart at: http://www.awea.org/faq/basicwr.html you need to go to the 50m (164') side of the chart. (the chart on the Honeywell turbines info sheets) If you do, then the highest windspeed used is 15.7mph. Use this to calculate the max power in the wind and you get 563 watts for the 6' turbine. Betz limit is 332 watts, and a really good turbine of 40% is only 225watts. A years energy production is 1972 watts, or close to the 2000kwhr/yr that they say.

So... IF you have a 164' tower, AND you have at least 15.7mph average windspeed, you might make the power they say you will. They advertise it as a roof mounted system, which means that you will have problems making a tenth of that amount. Like I said... marketing.



Windy in Kansas said:


> Seems to me that you folk are awfully quick to condemn before even seeing stats/tests of this design of unit


The reason for this is that once again, marketing has gotten in the way of truthfully telling people what they can expect from the product. Those "old efficiency tables" that you don't believe in have not be bested by any of the people that have spent millions, if not billions of dollars making wind turbines. That might tell you something about their accuracy.

SolarGary: the 2500kwhr/yr was for "class 4" winds, which are 16.8mph at 164'. I particularly like the "begins generating energy at 2mph." 1 watt theoretical energy at 2mph. REALLY impressive...

Michael


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

idahodave said:


> So it makes 2000 kWh a year...(from their website)
> 
> Or at $0.08 per kWh a $160 worth of electricity...
> 
> ...


I have to look at it from a little different perspective. First off as was mentioned in other posts government incentives offset the total price considerable if you can take advantage of them. I for one wouldn't be using borrow money to pay for it.

Second the unit does have a limited life span and their web site lists it as only 20 years if I remember correctly.

Third, I'm nearing the point to where the 2,000 KWH would supply all of my needs. So instead of figuring 2,000 X .08 I can also eliminate all of the taxes, franchise fees, monthly service charge for simply having a meter whether I use any electricity or not, surcharge for fuel, etc. However ratings do vary for the unit with Northern Tool showing it at 1500 KWH per year.

While the cost still outweighs the benefit it would indeed be wonderful to tell the utility company to kiss my grits. Having said that, with an off-grid system I would also have need for a battery bank, inverter, etc. hence additional purchasing.

As with most systems and many circumstances alternative power is really not cost effective since electricity is pretty much a bargain.

At my location the 24/7 wind is either just above 10.5 or 11.5 mph. I really don't remember but tend to think it is the 11.5 number. A small system for my needs would pair nicely with photovoltaics.

I would think that we would see some independent test results before long.


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

Ok, I was almost about to grant them a nod to almost having decent numbers because they appear to use the Weibull Distribution for wind speed, and calculate power from that. Since power goes up as the cube for wind speed, they get A LOT of extra power using that for their calculations compared to just using power at the average wind speed like most people do.

HOWEVER, I plugged their numbers from the chart here: on page 3 into excel.

Notice wind speed of 1.1mph? They have 5 watts power generation, which is 24 times the theoretical max limit of .2 watts. They don't get down to betz limit until 16mph, which happens to be 42% of their power. Their chart doesn't make any sense.

Oh, well... enough time wasted on this.

Michael


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

artificer said:


> Those "old efficiency tables" that you don't believe in have not be bested by any of the people that have spent millions, if not billions of dollars making wind turbines. That might tell you something about their accuracy.


Just to be clear, I never once said I didn't believe in the old efficiency charts.

I did mean to imply however that the old efficiency charts may not apply to newer technology of a completely different design. As an example---blow on a fan which only has two or even three blades, then blow on one that has many. Which moved easiest and with more rotation with the same amount of air flow? 

It may be that millions and perhaps billions have been spent designing and making wind turbines but until now they have all GENERALLY been of the same design. I see this one as being quite different.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Windy . . in the time that I used (wasted) scanning their web site, I stumbled on a disclaimer (in small print ) that they were not associated in any way with the original Honeywell Co.
. . . . .marketing strategies to use an old and respected "name" . . . . . .

I could change the name of my company to be *Honeywell Alternative Energy* 


If I could\would put one of those things on a 50 meter tower here at my place I would also have to install a camera trained on it to record when it totally disintegrated when the wind went above ---their printed limit--- of 41 mph.



yup . . more better than sliced bread.....................


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

Windy in Kansas said:


> Just to be clear, I never once said I didn't believe in the old efficiency charts.
> 
> I did mean to imply however that the old efficiency charts may not apply to newer technology of a completely different design. As an example---blow on a fan which only has two or even three blades, then blow on one that has many. Which moved easiest and with more rotation with the same amount of air flow?
> 
> It may be that millions and perhaps billions have been spent designing and making wind turbines but until now they have all GENERALLY been of the same design. I see this one as being quite different.


The main reason most wind turbines use the same design, is that the high speed propeller style turbine is the most efficient. Otherpower has a graph on their site that shows the efficiencies vs. tip speed. A fan blade will spin better in low winds, but its efficiency is not very good, and it has a low tip speed ratio(tsr). While it takes more wind to start spinning a propeller style turbine, once the wind gets up to usable power range, they spin fine. 

Different isn't always good. If by the "old efficiency chart" you mean the betz limit, nothing is going to be able to beat it. Its been proved by modern computation methods, and all experimental data back it up. The computational data shows that it might be even lower than the 59% everyone quotes.

Michael


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

No doubt - clean green eco enviro solar wind-power, ect ect... because there is money to be made, lots of scammers and spinners are coming out of the woodwork. Although its certainly good to see more interest in "planet friendly" techonology, its a shame that so many people are mislead - and ultimately, just wasting their money. The industry is hot, not because of what it can deliver, but because of the ease of which ignorant consumers can be taken advantage of.



wy_white_wolf said:


> The green industry is really hot right now. Investment wise it's in the same place the dotcoms were a few years ago. Remember what happened to them?


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

Jim-mi said:


> Windy . . in the time that I used (wasted) scanning their web site, I stumbled on a disclaimer (in small print ) that they were not associated in any way with the original Honeywell Co.


With this information telling the company isn't the Honeywell I know it seems a moot point to even bother with further discussion. It is one thing to attempt to stand up for an old and respected company (in my view) and quite another to stand up for a start up company with unknown track record.

I noticed the Honeywell logo even used the same style of lettering as the old line company. No doubt in part to deceive or ride the coattails of success.

Sorry to have stirred the pot so much.


----------



## frank (Dec 16, 2008)

wow! Interesting responses!

I have experience in aerodynamics (9,000 hr pilot). This thing caught my attention because the "fan" is shrouded, which eliminates considerable induced drag. Also, the motor doesn't cause drag.

I think that the "charts" won't apply to this design because they are based on "open" blade wind generators.

Honeywell picked this up from windtronics in Mich. Honeywell in my opinion wouldn't endorse it if it wasn't a winner (function and fin. performance too)

Thanks for responses, and if I get one, I'll post perf. #s


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

Wouldn't be too surprised if a fellow might be able to make a reduced price deal with a local Ace store to be the first in the area to have one as sort of a visual demo unit.

If purchased from Ace versus Northern Tool there is also the Ace Rewards program in which a person would get a few extra bennies.


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

frank said:


> wow! Interesting responses!
> 
> I have experience in aerodynamics (9,000 hr pilot). This thing caught my attention because the "fan" is shrouded, which eliminates considerable induced drag. Also, the motor doesn't cause drag.
> 
> ...


Its not a matter of better aerodynamics of a ducted fan, its about basic physics. Can we agree on the betz limit? 59% of max theoretical power contained in the wind. If so, take a look at the chart below from their performance chart, you'll see problems.

mph	watts Max-power	Betz-limit	40%
1-	5	__	0.1	__	0.1	__	0.1
2-	7	__	1.2	__	0.7	__	0.5
5-	32	__	18	__	11	__	7
10-	140	__	147	__	86	__	59
15-	330	__	494	__	292	__	198
20-	603	__	1172	__	692	__	469
25-	959	__	2289	__	1351	__	916
30-	1,397	__	3956	__	2334	__	1582
35-	1,917	__	6282	__	3706	__	2513
40-	2,520	__	9377	__	5532	__	3751
45-	3,205	__	13351__	7877	__	5340
50-	3,973	__	18314__	10806__	7326

First two columns are from their chart. Next is max theoretical power at sea level acording to AWEA, then betz limit of it, and then 40% ( a REALLY good turbine)

Notice that up to 10mph they are above theoretical max power, and over the betz limit up to 15mph. They don't get down to real world production numbers until 25mph.

Also notice the following disclaimer on every pdf: (this is NOT a Honeywell product)
The Honeywell Trademark is used under license from Honeywell International Inc. Honeywell International Inc. makes no representation or warranties with respect to this product.

I don't have a problem with pot stirring, its just that when, once again, someone posts about something New And Improved that is going to change everything, the only proof offered is that its a respectable company, or something that couldn't be done 100 years ago is now possible, so this MUST work.

I'd love to see some actual performance data for this thing. Until then, if I had the $5k they sell it for, I'd get a Bergey XL.1 and 80' tip up tower. $2,790 and $2,295.

Michael


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

After reading their web site for a while I had had enough and just clicked out . . .didn't see any tech data at all . . . .all product HYPE.

But I got the hint that the magnets are all out at the blade tips spinning by the coils mounted in the "shroud".
That there fore would give them a reasonably fast mag to coil speed.
Also that would be putting a bunch of mass "out there" . .which could be the reason for a *max* rpm.
Why do they Not put more tech data on that webb site . .?

For stuff like this don't be sorry for "stirring the pot" Windy.

Again I gotta say . .It really grates me when unethical peoples put out junk 'equipment' . . .when more effort is put in to 'marketing' then engineering.


rant off.


----------



## cowboy joe (Sep 14, 2003)

Removing a portion of the mechanical inefficiency is a great concept IMO which I hope will inspire other designs. That said, the push for new technology has given birth to many a great fiction writers. From what Iâve found, the 2000 KW-hours / year is based upon 42 mph winds. However, the controller for the Honeywell unit shuts the unit down at 29mph which limits power output to 1 KW-hours / yr. Iâm also under the impression that unit will self destruct in winds over 40mph which should prove interesting. Obviously, some creative marketing at work here. At least the folks at Popular Mechanics bothered to publish the power curves:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4321836.html

The power curve is ~1/2 way down the pageâ¦click to openâ¦which shows ~100 watts in a 10 mph wind. Thatâs considerably better than the AirX at the same speed remembering that the AirX is ~1/5th the cost.

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/sm_AirXtest.html

Plus, here are a few comments by Paul Gipe, one of the more knowledgeable folks when it comes to wind genny design:

http://www.wind-works.org/SmallTurbines/Windtronics760
EstimatedGeneration.html

And yet another review, this one more âglossyâ from CNET: 

http://news.cnet.com/greentech/?keyword=wind+turbines


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/FantasyWindTurbines.html



> Very few of these ideas are new, and certainly none of them are "revolutionary". While some of these inventions may spring from well-intentioned inventors, others are the brainchilds of fast-buck artists of--shall we say--questionable reputations.
> 
> It's often difficult for the uninitiated to tell the difference and therein lies the problem. How to separate the real from the imaginary, the fraudulent from the worthwhile.
> 
> ...


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

The things that get me steamed up over this thing:

Power curves are fantasy. 100w at 10mph, when betz limit is 86watts?

The great savings is in gearbox losses... increase the diameter by 2% (1 1/3") an you overcome the 4% loss of a typical well designed gearbox. Many small turbines don't HAVE gearboxes. I'll take a good gearbox vs. the magnets spinning out at the blade tips.

The "look at all the power you can produce (at 164 feet), but you can install it on your roof" argument. Really schizophrenic, and why small wind power is getting a really bad name in Europe.

Oh, well... I should just stop reading this thread. I think everyone agrees by now that this thing is a scam, and expensive at that.

Michael


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i just saw a promo for michigan state. it is in the series were the actor jeff daniels speaks on behalf of the economic benefits of buisinesses moving to michigan. they showed a shot or two of a rooftop mountable wind turbine that looked a lot like this model, but i don't think i heard a reference to honeywell. i guess my point is that this unit must have a lot of ad dollars behind it.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Jeff Daniels was recorded in a studio and then all that stuff would be added in behind him.
Jeff Daniels is a nice guy but is not a wind guy . . .and he was quite happy to take the fees paid him for the commercial.
And would you care to guess how much all the rest of the production crew and the add agency know about wind turbines . .?!?!
The call goes out for some good video of a ***wind*** thingy..........
"we don't know or care if the thing works . . . does it make good video"

Yes lots of bucks for advertising...........

I used to be in that game.....


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Just to be the devils advocate (and I mean that in the truest sense).



If it's not susceptible to turbulence. Could the fact that it's mounted at the peak of the roof make a difference? Wouldn't the air in the wind tend to be compressed as it encounters the roof? This would mean that the air would be "thicker" or "denser". Of course this would mean that the house would have to be situated in the right way and this would be greatly diminished if the wind came from the other direction of course. But it could be possible to produce these numbers.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

stanb999 said:


> Just to be the devils advocate (and I mean that in the truest sense).
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not susceptible to turbulence. Could the fact that it's mounted at the peak of the roof make a difference? Wouldn't the air in the wind tend to be compressed as it encounters the roof? This would mean that the air would be "thicker" or "denser". Of course this would mean that the house would have to be situated in the right way and this would be greatly diminished if the wind came from the other direction of course. But it could be possible to produce these numbers.


Along the same lines. Wind coming up the slope of the roof would also be at an angle to the turbine. This reduces the effective swept area. Which in turn reduces the power output. So no gain and you are still left with the big if on the turbulence.


----------

