Wind Power Unlike Any Other On Horizon

Sheerwind’s simulations and computer models indicate that the Invelox technology can produce three times more power than a conventional wind turbine, while mounted on a tower at least 25 percent shorter, and using a ground-based turbine with blades 25 percent as long.  Because the system is shorter, smaller, and has fewer moving parts than a conventional system, SheerWind expects to achieve savings of 16 to 38 percent per megawatt-hour (MWh) produced.

At 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, the technology is believed capable of producing wind power at prices comparable to new gas-fired generation.


image via SheerWind

Unlike the conventional tower-based turbine design (“you put the blade up in the sky and you are at the mercy of nature”), Allaei says that Invelox has the potential to overcome many of the challenges facing large-scale wind farm development. For one, the technology can generate power at wind speeds as low as 2 mph. This can make wind power feasible in areas where it is currently not.

The Invelox generators can also be sited close to urban centers of demand, and used in tandem with natural gas power plants. This configuration would enable utilities to manage wind power like a baseload resource.


image via SheerWind

Invelox also does not produce the vibrations that critics of conventional wind power claim contribute to “Wind Turbine Syndrome.” Citing a 2009 study of communities located near wind farms in Wales, Allaei explains that wind turbines generate vibrations at frequencies too low for human ears to detect, but at which some organs in the human body resonate, such as the heart.

“The lower the frequency, the longer the vibrations travel, like whales that communicate with each other from miles away in the ocean…. There is evidence that this can cause people that live near wind farms to get tired, get sick or throw up,” Allaei argues.

Of course, Allaei knew that there would be skeptics. Since 1992, he has founded six companies, including QRDC, a consulting firm specializing in noise and vibration control. With over 100 publications, 25 U.S. patents and 14 international patents, but little experience in the power industry, Allaei found himself having to convince high-level utility executives that his idea will work. “When I first started, I did not even have a business plan.” he said. “My first test was to see if people in the power industry could punch a hole in the argument that I was making. These are not shy people. If they don’t like your idea, they will tell you to your face.”

But Allaei is inspired and convincing; and his ideas are making sense to people who know the energy business. Craig Mataczynski, former CEO and president of both RES Americas and NRG, met with Allaei specifically “to prove that the technology would not work.” Now, Mataczynski sits on SheerWind’s board.

SheerWind has developed several laboratory prototypes and full-scale computer models, and expects to begin field testing in the first quarter of 2012. “We have received strong traction from customers during development; and if our claims are validated in the field, they will buy,” Allaei said.

He also envisions that the technology could be scaled down for quick deployment after a disaster. “It would have far more impact in our community and society than just as a money-making business,” he said. “Really, this [technology] can change the equation. It can change wind energy from an alternative to a main source of generation.”

Lauren Craig is a writer and consultant living in Seattle, WA. She holds an M.S. in International Development from Tulane University, and is co-founder of Sustainable Systems Integrators, LLC., an employee-owned solar energy design and installation firm in New Orleans, LA. She is also certified in PV design and installation by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP).


  • Reply December 13, 2011

    Pete Danko

    Some strong conceptual similarities here with the Oklahoma project we reported on a few weeks ago:

    • Reply May 27, 2014

      Randall Mathews

      This is so obviously bullshit, check out the fabulous comparison with a water dam which uses gravity on a high and heavy substance.

  • Reply December 14, 2011


    what is the typical power output of the devices?

    • Reply January 22, 2012

      John B.

      As it states in the graphic above, 7.2 MW per tower, 10 acres/tower.u00a0 If scaled down for residential use, a free-standing unit could be practical for homes on a large plot of land (1 acre or more).u00a0 IF the proportions hold true, and assuming the technology delivers on the projected power generation (and my calculations are correct), a unit that can deliver typical residential service (200 amp service) would require about 1500 sq. ft.u00a0 I can see designing residential roofs around this design to make the home more energy self-sufficient.

  • Reply December 14, 2011


    This design also looks like it would be more “bird-friendly”; incredibly important from both sides of looking at it…

  • Reply December 14, 2011


    seems like a very good concept and should work well. lookingforward to hearing more

  • Reply December 21, 2011

    david k waltz

    The ability to use the power as baseload (supplemented by nat. gas) overcomes one of the major problems with renewable energies. Good luck!nn

  • Reply January 15, 2012

    Phillip Luebke

    It looks like it collects wind coming from any direction, but the output is in one direction only, at a much higher speed (15 MPH input to 60 MPH output in the illustration). What are the ramifications of that?

    • Reply January 22, 2012

      John B.

      Phillip, the velocity is increased because the (cross-sectional) area (of the flow) is decreasing.u00a0 On the output side, the process is reversed and the air slows down as the cross sectional area of the flow again increases.u00a0 To do otherwise would violate some important laws of physics.

      • Reply January 22, 2012

        John B.

        Additionally, much of that kinetic energy from the high velocity is converted into electrical energy from the turbine/gen set.u00a0 So minimal increase in cross-sectional area is needed to slow the air to 15 MPH or less.u00a0 Total conversion of the wind energy (not practical) would mean the output would consist of stagnant air that would have to be evacuated from the system somehow.

  • Reply January 26, 2012


    How are are rain and snow effects addressed in the design?

  • Reply April 7, 2012


    Concept looks great, we need an acceptable new energy idea that the public will embrace rather than complain about the bird-bats-bees-butterfield-noise.  Of course it all comes down to dollars making sense.  I like your thinking outside of the box and wish you great success in getting it developed and place in the field. 
    If you every need any installation help, feel free to call me:  Gary Ogden  DBA: Micro Service Group    I’ve also great contacts with those in other trades that can insure that it would be done in an orderly- safe manner.
    This is the best Alternative concept I’ve seen so far in regards to not using the blade 230ft towers.

  • Reply April 24, 2012


    Six times better than perpetual motion devices.  Pretty cool.  And the energy to get six times the power from a wind stream comes from WHERE?   The physics of aerodynamics will show that the air will flow around something instead of through it as soon as there is a little resistance.  That is why you can only recover a very small amount of ram air ( 1 % to 5% ) from any velocity.  The 90 degree bend in the system will create a greater loss than the gain from any ram effects.  Since it is impossible to make a perpetual motion device, these people took the leap to go six times beyond that.  Just imagine if we could do that with everything.  Your car would run forever and once it started, you could turn it off and it would accelerate on its own.  The physics is thoroughly flawed with what these people say.

  • Reply May 30, 2012


    I have seen several 1.8MW towers strung with 500 meter spaceing between them a far cry from 100 acres per tower

  • Reply July 2, 2012


    I belevie in this 600%.  The future for our nation is in the “wind”.  I would be one of the first to maybe purchase for my farm however would need to know costs, tax structures, etc.  Dean Ayres.  Leavenworth, Kansas  660048

  • Reply February 26, 2013

    Gunn Sinclair

    This comment is about suspicious fund-raising and media outreach activity by a person living in the
    Chaska, MN area. I want to make folks
    aware of this Doctor of Engineering who has stockpiled more than a million
    dollars (so far), ostensibly for promoting a “wind tube invention” which
    seems so lame in my opinion, that it
    must call into question what this man may really be doing.

    Why do I care?
    Well, because I’m trying to market the Real McCoy of enclosed wind
    turbines for building tops, etc., and it appears that this fellow is pooping in
    my back yard. After researching
    Sheerwind’s Invelox online and checking into the Dr.’s history of
    self-promotion, it appears to me that he could be serving the role of an
    impostor, using a series of red herrings and misinformation in order to take
    local Twin Cities media and “investors” for a ride.

    Folks, please check for yourself what this man’s
    intentions could be for the thousands of dollars he’s raising. Is investment money going merely to support a
    comfortable lifestyle here in America, or could some of the money end up doing
    something else, somewhere else down the road?
    I ask these questions because there’s only so much money one can
    legitimately spend trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Here in the Invelox, we have something that in
    my opinion deserves no money be spent at all, yet…it’s happening. Why? How?

    Ask an engineer specializing in wind turbine
    technology what this fellow is doing, and I believe you will be told that it
    makes no sense whatsoever; yet he is supposed to be a Doctor of Engineering. One blogger from a magazine said the Dr.’s
    concept is “worthless and his patent should be revoked.” The idea of pressurized air, also, is without
    merit and un-patentable; I found this out myself as a wind turbine patent
    holder. So, I’m going to keep my eye on
    this guy.


    4 of 11


    January 25, 2013

    To call the Venturi effect “a
    patented process” belies a serious lack of understanding.

    As the MIT report states, the Sheer Wind technology is yet to be demonstrated
    — even at pilot level.


    5 of 11


    January 25, 2013

    Bernhard Scheffler,

    Have you informed the U.S. Patent Office that Patent 7,811,048,811,048.PN.&OS=PN/7,811,048&RS=PN/7,811,048

    is worthless and should be revoked? 🙂

    I have no dog in this fight since I believe no intermittent renewables are
    going to solve the problems facing the planet from use of fossil fuels but I
    would like to understand what you are claiming.

    Of course the Venturi effect is unpatentable but applications may be. Was
    there not some sort of demonstration or model to obtain the patent?

    Best, Terry

    “Martin Hansen, a wind energy expert at the Technical University of
    Denmark, disagrees. He says INVELOX will draw in and speed up the wind as
    claimed, but when the turbine is placed inside the ductwork it will create
    such high pressure that little additional air will be drawn into the device,
    making it a poor alternative to conventional turbine designs.”

  • Reply June 7, 2013

    Mike Barnard

    Sheerwind Invelox gets a place on my ratings board for wind ‘innovations’, but it’s not a good place.

  • Reply March 26, 2014


    Wind powers are a great source of energy and to produce electricity.
    More and more countries are installing them. Its installation also uses less
    space than others.

    Wind Energy

  • Reply August 1, 2014

    Mike Barnard

    The Invelox is a very ineffective and very misleadingly represented wind generation device. Full analysis here:

    Don’t invest. Run away.

Leave a Reply