John M. Thalmann's Wind Turbine
January/February 1975
By the Mother Earth News editors
Give the politicians and bureaucrats credit. They're a little slow, but they're finally catching on. It may be too little and too late . . . but they are beginning to appropriate funds for the research and development of renewable, non-polluting energy sources.
RELATED CONTENT
Country Lore: A fiberglass insulation wrap for canning....
Brief introduction, including a windplant design service and the wind power digest. Section include...
Terry Mehrkam's company, Mehrkam Energy Development Company, designs and markets state of the art w...
THE SALTER RD-7000 WIND TURBINE March/April 1975
"We've eliminated the weathe...
On the other hand, it's probably a foregone conclusion that very little—if any—of those appropriations will ever trickle down into the hands of the folks with the ideas that really need to be tested.
People like John M. Thalmann of Crown Point, Indiana.
Now John may not have the breakthrough alternative energy designs that we're all looking for, But he has come up with a couple or three interesting concepts that deserve—at the very least—to be tested on a scale large enough to either prove or disprove the ideas. As it now stands, however, Thalmann has sunk virtually every penny he has in developing-and applying for patents on—three separate inventions . . . and no large corporation, no government agency, no independent research firm has yet offered to underwrite a nickel's worth of his work.
Perhaps the most interesting of John's projects-at least to MOTHER's readers—is the one he calls his wind turbine. In essence, the machine consists of four very light, one-way flaps suspended from offset booms and mounted in sets of two on a vertical shaft. The shaft, of course, is supported by bearings that allow it to revolve. As it turns, each vane swings down to offer its maximum surface to the wind during one half of every revolution . . . and up to feather itself during the other half.
"My invention," Thalmann says, "is closely related to the Savonius S-rotor that MOTHER has mentioned from time to time. It is, however, an improvement over the Savonius because it allows for a much greater rotor diameter than the split oil drums commonly used on that design. In addition, my turbine's blades are very light, do not have compound curves and offer much less resistance to the wind on the return half of each revolution."
It would seem that—compared to a Stuart windplant (one with vertical propeller-like blades on the front)—John's design might have some further advantages. It is much less complex and needs no tail to point it into the wind. Its rotor is made up only of simple, flat surfaces and contains no critical airfoil shapes that are complicated and expensive to manufacture. It requires no 900 conversion gears to transmit the power it generates to the base of any tower on which it might be mounted. It's lighter in weight and easier to balance. Less expensive to manufacture. Its speed is, to a certain extent, self-governing.
