A Homemade Wind Turbine (Free Energy)
I DID NOT BUILD THIS OR MAKE THE VIDEO, just posting it bcz I encourage everyone to invest in their own. This is a test run of the guys newly made wind turbine. If these links do not work, just google “Build your own Wind Generator”.. www.thekevdog.com www.instructables.com www.forcefieldmagnets.com Output depends entirely on wind speed, windy days will yeild more power. smaller units 5′-10′ average 50-500 watts larger units 11′-20′ produce on average between 500 watts-up (professionally 21′ and larger up to 7.5 Kw and up) Power is defined as the rate at which work is done or energy is consumed. The formula for average power is acquired by dividing work by the time needed to perform work: P = W/t. Power has units of newton-meters per second or joules per second or watts A kilowatt-hour is the electrical energy consumed in one hour at the constant rate of one kilowatt. The average household in the United States uses about 8, 900 kilowatt-hours of electricity each year. Here are some math formulas to consider…(source: www.awea.org Because air has mass and it moves to form wind, it has kinetic energy. You may remember from science class that: kinetic energy (joules) = 0.5 xmx V2 where: m = mass (kg) (1 kg = 2.2 pounds) V = velocity (meters/second) (meter = 3.281 feet = 39.37 inches) Usually, we’re more interested in power (which changes moment to moment) than energy. Since energy = power x time and density is a more convenient way to express the mass of flowing air, the …
Filed under Vertical Wind Generator by on Mar 19th, 2010. Comment. 
Leave a Comment
Comments on A Homemade Wind Turbine (Free Energy)
i built a propeller with his idea
hahahaha….this was simple fan with electricity……guy wanna make us fool……………….
I have built a non wind turbine belt conveyor turbine cog driver it may sound a bit complicated but it’s very similar to having a dog and still barking yourself abit pointless but don’t be deterred alot of people spend hours and hours a day building absolute worthless rubbish and you never know by some miracle something might look good or even work, but please don’t get too optimistic it might lead to much dissapointment
Go to freemicrosoftpoint[DOT]com for a working one!
@ greenlivingitup . com it shows how to build a free energy device with magnets
shouldnt that be berth, and who’s and earlier comments credibility and population has nothing to do with industrialization, it comes from unprotected sex.
watch this and more at movie27 ( . ) com
is this with a car alternator?
feel free to tell me about yours. I have alternaters, brake rotors, batteries, ways and means to build towers…
didn’t look at this one yet, but yes brake rotors from the front of generally early seventies through present, rear drive two wheel drive cars and trucks. wonder how they keep wires from twisting. Use some slip ring device?
They recive an insignificant amount ( I never said none) of the industrial products.
What they recive is almost all food. Again to releterate only 800m cars on the planet. Read that as cars are owned by ONLY 11% of people.
Most people don’t benefit from any of the goods who’s production and use make up the bulk of planets GDP and emissions.
Half the food they eat are ’scraps’ i.e would be produced and thrown away regardless of their existence, same with most of there clothes.
Whose twisting your gibberish? I actually agreed with your earlier remarks about population control and how to archive it.
Which is why I gave you such a wide birth to explain yourself, instead you did what the stupid do the world over when they hit a mental brick wall.
BTW Thanks for signing my record of idiots. You belong up their with the internet nazis, and relgious loons I preserve…
Gratz You’re immortalised forever, pls copy and paste some of your dumb economics too
Oh yeah and BTW…
If 60% of the world’s poorest do not receive and significant benefits from industrialisation, why are there so many of the buggers?
You can’t support a population of 3.5B poor people *without* industrialisation.
Yawn.
I don’t think you’ve been twisting what I say out of malice, you’re just having some “difficulty times” with your reading comprehension.
Judging by user comments on your profile it is something you make a habit of
Stay in school!
Where did I blame anyone for the poor being poor? Learn English comprehension.
Its you who knows ZERO about economics, demonstrated when you did not realise someone like Bill gates actually DOES emit a lot more emissions than you because of his WORKING capital.
I politely corrected you as I largely agreed with your comments earlier about population. Then in your buffoonish arrogance you decided to be flippant & sarcastic throwing away what little creditbility you had.
YOU ARE STUPID.
Aww princess, do you feel embarrassed now?
Should do, you slept right through economics class…
The 60% of the world’s poorest are largely there because of corruption
It’s not the rich countries fault 
what? silly?! never mind mate. Keep thinking that 60% of the worlds poorest receive any significant benefits from industrialisation….
Arsehole, I was being polite in not rubbishing your econmic nonsense from the start but if you are going to be like that you can fuck yourself.
WTF?
Now you’re just being silly, grow up.
When you look at anecdotes like “Less than 50% of the world use toilet paper” you gotta think how little they consume, if toilet roll is not even on their buy list.
Ofc back to reality, if the rich died suddenly, their factories, farms and mines would not disappear. Someone else would use them.
The point was you brought up; “facts right no?”.
I feel you are misrepresenting the fact of the poors emissions by claiming their deaths could cut emissions when they wipe their asses with leaves.
If you cull 60% of people at random, then ofc you will kill 60% of that top 5% that owns most of the planets capital (i.e emission producing industry)
If you read back I was talking more about large swaths that are more consistent with some sort of bomb or impact.
Not really a serious analysis. Its known 1 Billion are starving and live of scraps i.e food not even grown for them.. Its also known they’re only 800k think about that, the vast majority of people emit near no transport CO2.
60% fewer people means 60% fewer products sold, 60% less area required for farms…”
If you select a random 60%, then the above is correct.
If you select the poorest then sure, you’ll get less than a 60% reduction. How much less? That requires some serious analysis
60% fewer people means 60% fewer products sold, 60% less area required for farms…”
That again is wrong. Some groups even within countries consume much more. I wish to god you were right. But as it stands people in the west consume far more energy on average per head than the avg in india, but even in india there will be many who consume more than us..
In short , you could find ~3.5B people (60%) in the world from all over who live of scraps and sleep outside… who emit near nothing.
“It’s the bottom 60% … emissions possible” Exactly what I am saying. Those count as the owners emissions, not theirs.
“The factories would exist at all if there weren’t millions of people (rich, middle class and poor alike) to buy their products” OFC, if these rich people all died nobody is gonna leave their factories unused, hence why we both said its a hypothetical situation. But in interests of being accurate, its the emissions of the owners not the workers.
Yes, bill gates emissions ARE that of a small country. His money is invested, not sitting under his bed. They are driving production and deliveries etc…
Your carbon emiisions for GDP is not as simple as how many lights you have on etc. Bill gates uses a similar amount to you personally, but who do the lights and air conditioners at MS HQ ultimtely belong too? Its Bill’s lights, not the employees. Its his CO2 not his employees.
In short, the world runs a carbon economy. Wealth = Emissions.
Who is responsible for the emissions released during the production of a cell phone charger?
The rich guy who owns the factory or the schmuck that buys the phone?
60% fewer people means 60% fewer products sold, 60% less area required for farms and so on…