I don't know anything about them
maybe someone in Minnesota can check them out

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-sheerwind-invelox-turbine-power.html

SheerWind claims its INVELOX wind turbine produces 600% more power

http://sheerwind.com/

http://sheerwind.com/wp-content/uploads/sheerwind/2013/03/Farm-Show-article2.pdf

The upside down windmill

has all the red flags of being a scam, but I don't know everything about physics. a PhD only goes so far...then it takes magical ways to defy conservation of energy.
their chart reminds me of the chart on "in living color" for an investment scam...simple xy graph from zero/zero straight diagonally up to "mo money, mo money!!" with no shred of data.
typically such machines might work as a toy....but try to put a load on them!!!

the history of science is one of new discoveries of course; and they are often ridiculed by most as scam nonsense....but there is a reason for that....it's because most inventions have been scams or otherwise based on impossibilities even if not intentional scammery.
if this actually works as claimed, it seems they would allow independent testing. they won't.....who would ever give money with that condition?
charlatans never stop thinking of ways to separate suckers from cash.

One look at the design and I belive them. I have always invisioned that the future of wind power will be in chanaling of wind. Like why would you use 1 X wind power to spin it when you can use 10 X or 20 X wind power.

It's a no brainer think of a hydro electric generator. Do they just throw it in the river or do they build a dam. It's about dam time (pun intended lol). I cant belive that lots of companies have been working on this and that they're just coming up with this now. It's things like this that sap my ambition too try and spread knowledge, we're all incredibly dumb my self included.

How about a thermal pain green house with a heat exchanger on the air intake. Don't just let cold air in and warm air out hello. you've got no insulation. Think of beaming light into an insulated building no greenhouse needed it's obsolete. Try telling that to a Duchman lol.

It's a dam for light a dam for wind and a dam for water.

Oh and how do they store the power with silly batteries, Just store it's potential energy in a tank and then convert it into power as you need it. Batteries not included. You can give it to them on a silver platter but they still don't take it.

Hey guess what, if you cup your hand behinde your ear you can hear better. Must be caus your cathching more sound energy, Amaizing! lol
Oh and it has nothing to do with being upside down. ITS A WIND FUNNEL DAM IT.

I wonder how it's performance compares to a wind turbine the size of the funnel intake? Though, even if that comparison is less then spectacular, i assume ther'd be signifigant advantages to having mush smaller scale mechanicals.

A 600% improvement at 1 mph (winds) is Very impressive UNTIL you try to put a load onto the system ! They are (probably) delivering everything they say they are, BUT,

This is ether an English Major sent out to review a science project and then Edited by an Editor whose chief requirement for his job is Graduating from a 2 year Business
Administration course, Or a simple case of fraud - perpetuated by a project manager who is hoping that a few more bucks will turn things around for him, and his name will
not have to be associated with a failure ! I too smell B.S. Big Al !

There is nothing particularly new about a ducted fan, or ducted turbine. The efficiencies claimed for this are nonsense - but probably true in a very limited sense. I don't doubt that they could achieve a 600% increase in wind velocity, but that is not the same as saying it is 600% more efficient, in fact I am certain it is substantially less efficient.

The effect of all that ducting is to allow a smaller turbine - all that extra hardware in the ducts allows you to reduce the length of the blades. But is that less expensive than longer blades? One thing I am certain of is that it lowers the overall efficiency of the unit because you lose a lot of energy changing the direction of the wind and doing the other things required to make this work. For example, there have to be one way air valves (or flaps) that shut off the downwind 'collectors', since they would otherwise create negative pressure and lower the effective power delivered to the turbine. Those valves, even in open position, will also lower the final pressure delivered to the turbine. Shoving wind into pipes is never going to be very efficient.

But while I'm making the point that in any meaningful way the efficiency claims are almost certainly bogus - that really has very little relevance. Who cares if it isn't mechanically efficient - is it economical? Like solar panels I'd much rather have units that are only 2% efficient than 17% efficient panels that cost 100 times as much. I'm no more worried about a 'wind spill' than a 'solar spill' so the efficiency of the unit is pretty much moot compared to its economics.

Having the turbine and major moving parts at ground level is a big benefit. As is the unidirectional design. But those features are also present in Darrieus and Savonius wind turbines with a lot less complication. Is this design any better? I'm a little dubious, but it all comes down to cost.

Wind power is the product of swept area. This design is only capable of the power from the area of each chamber. You'll notice they have chambers facing in many direction, I imagine this is to harness wind from several directions.
Of course there's a trick here. The wind velocity increases through the funnel as its diameter reduces to the windmill itself. Now let's say we have a reduction of several times and our windmill is several times smaller than one without the funnel. Well it's possible that it gets close to the same power as a larger mill simply because it is harnessing more wind, so for its size it is equaling a larger mill. The problem is that the added expense of the funnel system probably isn't saving anything over building a larger windmill.... Betz has nothing to worry about!

Rob