|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > October 2005 > Generator tower
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Jack Russell 2005-09-23, 4:21 pm |
| I am in the design and planning stages of installing a tower for a 400w
Air-X wind generator. I need some input...How tall would you dare go using
1-1/2" sch 40 galv. pipe and if the run from the base of the tower to my
batteries is 150 feet, what conductor wire AGW would you recommend. Can I go
one size smaller with the ground? One more thing, minimum wire size for the
guys
I was thinking 33 feet tall, and 4 AGW for the conductor... and 8 lengths
(2 on each side) of 3/16" cable for the guys
Thanks, Paul...
| |
| Ecnerwal 2005-09-23, 4:21 pm |
| In article <kFXYe.24569$sx2.21186@fed1read02>,
"Jack Russell" <jack_russell@cox.net> wrote:
> I was thinking 33 feet tall, and 4 AGW for the conductor... and 8 lengths
> (2 on each side) of 3/16" cable for the guys
If you are in the USA, the NEC will tell you what the minimum required
size of wire is. Depends on your amperage, which depends on your
voltage...
33 feet of 1-1/2" pipe sounds like an educational experience in how
expensive being cheap can be waiting to happen. Probably not waiting
long...
--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
| |
| petersonra@aol.com 2005-09-23, 4:21 pm |
| do a google search for voltage drop calculator and plug in the numbers
and see what comes out.
as for ground size, it sort of depends on what ground wire you are
talking about. there are several green wires commonly called grounds,
and the code specifies the sizes for them differently.
| |
| Jack Russell 2005-09-23, 6:21 pm |
| Thanks, You were a lot of help... {:}-o
"Ecnerwal" <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote in message
news:LawrenceSMITH-3CAF3E.14530723092005@news.verizon.net...
> In article <kFXYe.24569$sx2.21186@fed1read02>,
> "Jack Russell" <jack_russell@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> If you are in the USA, the NEC will tell you what the minimum required
> size of wire is. Depends on your amperage, which depends on your
> voltage...
>
> 33 feet of 1-1/2" pipe sounds like an educational experience in how
> expensive being cheap can be waiting to happen. Probably not waiting
> long...
>
> --
> Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
| |
| Jack Russell 2005-09-23, 6:21 pm |
|
"33 feet of 1-1/2" pipe sounds like an educational experience in how
expensive being cheap can be waiting to happen. Probably not waiting
long"
HMMM...Cheap....That is NOT my intent nor did it even cross my mind. How
about...to design a structure that is not wastful or overbuilt and will
withstand the rigors if its enviroment. Sounds like you subcribe to "Lets
build from pig iron and stone, thicker and heavier MUST be
better"...Aircraft with compoments that can be torn apart by
hand...NAAH...pig iron and stone. Spacecraft so fragil they will not
withstand earth gravity...NAAH...pig iron and stone. This was just a comment
to the group to stir thought perhaps provoke an intelligent discussion. I
will now proceed to recearch and calculate the safe limits of a guyed 1-1/2"
sch. 40 galv. pipe tower...and leave you to your "pig iron and stone"
| |
|
| Jack Russell wrote:
> I am in the design and planning stages of installing a tower for a 400w
> Air-X wind generator. I need some input...How tall would you dare go using
> 1-1/2" sch 40 galv. pipe and if the run from the base of the tower to my
> batteries is 150 feet, what conductor wire AGW would you recommend. Can I
> go one size smaller with the ground? One more thing, minimum wire size for
> the guys
>
> I was thinking 33 feet tall, and 4 AGW for the conductor... and 8 lengths
> (2 on each side) of 3/16" cable for the guys
>
> Thanks, Paul...
You dont supply very much information so let me guess.
400 watt? 4 One Hundred Watt light bulbs? Or did you mean 4kw?
4kw at 12 volts DC? Thats about ~333 amps and 150 ft one way, so your gong
to need a copper wire about half as big as your arm - at least 400mcm in
order to carry the load and keep voltage drop reasonable.
If you meant to generate at 240 volts AC then now thats a different story.
Now your lookin at about ~17 amps and a #10 will handle it.
Just in case you really meant 400 watts at 12VDC then thats about 34 amps
and you can get away with #4 copper
Eric
| |
| RF Dude 2005-09-23, 11:21 pm |
| Not much information... like where you live, etc.
If you want to look at all the variables, check the typical winds for your
area. Know anyone that builds communication towers and they will tell you
what the typical wind and ice loads are. Also do some research about
various metals and wall thicknesses. For instance, consider schedule 80
instead of 40, or different metal alloys.
What you are describing can be built... and is used commecially. Consider 4
guys and make one of them winchable so that you can hinge the tower down for
maintenance. This gets around the labor and safety laws for tower climbing.
I would say that 150' at low votages (you don't mention a voltage) would
require thick wire. Another simple calculation.
Good Luck. Come back with more specifics to bounce off the group and we
will help you out.
RF Dude.
| |
| Michelle P 2005-09-24, 12:21 am |
| 400 Watts at 12 volts is 33 amps.
400 Watts at 24 Volts is 16.5 amps
these are aviation voltages. The FAA is quite helpful in this case.
At 150 feet 12V 33A bundled stranded 8 Gauge. if I read the chart
correctly.
At 150 Feet 24V 16.5A bundled stranded 12 Gauge if I read the chart
correctly.
Michelle
Jack Russell wrote:
>I am in the design and planning stages of installing a tower for a 400w
>Air-X wind generator. I need some input...How tall would you dare go using
>1-1/2" sch 40 galv. pipe and if the run from the base of the tower to my
>batteries is 150 feet, what conductor wire AGW would you recommend. Can I go
>one size smaller with the ground? One more thing, minimum wire size for the
>guys
>
>I was thinking 33 feet tall, and 4 AGW for the conductor... and 8 lengths
>(2 on each side) of 3/16" cable for the guys
>
>Thanks, Paul...
>
>
>
>
| |
| Bernard Bélisle 2005-09-24, 4:21 am |
| Sir,
I would recommend you to use an old TV antenna tower where you can
install 6ft of pipe at the top. As allmost everybody are on cable or
sattelite for TV reception it will be easy to find an old tower at a cheap
price or even sometimes for free.You have to install your wind generator at
15 ft over any obstacle in a rayon of 400 ft to prevent turbulence from
trees or buildings. It is not allways possible but try to come as close as
this as possible. You will see it easily if the machine is not high enough
because the wind generator will allways shift in the wind if it is not high
enough. In a properly made installation the wind generator will stay most of
the time oriented in the prevailing wind. Now for your wire size: As it is
impossible theorically to obtain 400 watts of electrical charging energy
from a 45 inches propeller diameter but feasible to pick up 400 watts of
mechanical energy in the wind you will not need to install a very big wire.
To be true, the real energy available is less than half of 400 watts because
of the loss in the modification of energy. Each time that you modify the
energy you will have a loss between 10 to 20%. You take a certain amount of
energy in the wind, you modify it into mechanical energy (rotation) that is
modified an other time in electrical energy that is modify again from AC to
DC and you use it to charge a battery that offer a resistance on charging.
So with all these modifications you finish with a great loss. If you use an
inverter you loose again energy. To be sure you will not have too much loss
in the wiring use # 4 or #6 multistrand welding cable with at least 200
strands in the wire. The more strands you have the better it is to prevent
surface resistance. For the guys you can use your 3/16 in. stainless steel
wires and they do not need to be too tight because the tower should have a
bit of flexibility. Just tighten the guys as much as you can with your hands
and it will be OK and check for good anchoring of the guys in the earth. For
more security 3 or even better 5 guys are recommended. So if one breaks in a
Katrina or Rita you will still have a good coefficient of security. To save
money on the wiring also you can use the tower for the ground wire. You can
put a ground rod at the bottom of the tower to prevent lightnings. Make sure
that the connections on the tower is clean and put dielectric grease on all
connections. So if you have a 40ft tower you will save 40 ft of wire. The
success in any wind generator installation comes from having very good
contacts from the wind generator wiring to the batteries. For batteries do
not take car batteries. Good deep cycle batteries are the best. Check the
state of the batteries with a voltmeter on the battery poles and not with an
ammeter. If you go on my website www.electrovent.com at the FAQ section you
will find many answers to the questions we had from our customers since many
years.
Good windmilling.
Bernard Belisle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Russell" <jack_russell@cox.net>
Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 2:17 PM
Subject: Generator tower
>I am in the design and planning stages of installing a tower for a 400w
>Air-X wind generator. I need some input...How tall would you dare go using
>1-1/2" sch 40 galv. pipe and if the run from the base of the tower to my
>batteries is 150 feet, what conductor wire AGW would you recommend. Can I
>go one size smaller with the ground? One more thing, minimum wire size for
>the guys
>
> I was thinking 33 feet tall, and 4 AGW for the conductor... and 8 lengths
> (2 on each side) of 3/16" cable for the guys
>
> Thanks, Paul...
>
| |
| Vaughn 2005-09-24, 9:21 am |
|
"Bernard Bélisle" <belisleb@webnet.qc.ca> wrote in message
news:dh2r35$bir$1@utornnr1pp.grouptelecom.net...
> Sir,
> I would recommend you to use an old TV antenna tower where you can
> install 6ft of pipe at the top. As allmost everybody are on cable or sattelite
> for TV reception it will be easy to find an old tower at a cheap price or even
> sometimes for free.
I suggest that you google on "Rohn 25 tower". That is a type of tower that
is very commonly used for TV and 2-way radio. You can buy it new in 10-foot
sections, or find it used. They make special top sections that end in a socket
for a pipe, and special bottom mounting sections as well as brackets and other
accessories.
I don't have any right now (so don't ask) but I have had trouble selling
the used stuff for $10.00 a section. I don't have any idea what the wind load
of your generator is, but the engineering data for Rohn towers is readily
available and quite readable. Rohn also makes similar tower sections in larger
sizes.
Vaughn
| |
|
|
Jack Russell wrote:
> I am in the design and planning stages of installing a tower for a 400w
> Air-X wind generator. I need some input...How tall would you dare go using
> 1-1/2" sch 40 galv. pipe and if the run from the base of the tower to my
> batteries is 150 feet, what conductor wire AGW would you recommend. Can I go
> one size smaller with the ground? One more thing, minimum wire size for the
> guys
>
> I was thinking 33 feet tall, and 4 AGW for the conductor... and 8 lengths
> (2 on each side) of 3/16" cable for the guys
>
> Thanks, Paul...
What voltage? That's kinda a crucial point ;-).
DJ
| |
| Scott Willing 2005-09-24, 11:21 am |
| On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:49:43 -0700, Eric <nospam@email.com> wrote:
>Jack Russell wrote:
>
>
>You dont supply very much information so let me guess.
>400 watt? 4 One Hundred Watt light bulbs? Or did you mean 4kw?
Welcome to the world of small-scale homepower. The Air-X is a 400W
(claimed, peak, in sub-hurricane force winds) turbine.
-=s
>4kw at 12 volts DC? Thats about ~333 amps and 150 ft one way, so your gong
>to need a copper wire about half as big as your arm - at least 400mcm in
>order to carry the load and keep voltage drop reasonable.
> If you meant to generate at 240 volts AC then now thats a different story.
>Now your lookin at about ~17 amps and a #10 will handle it.
> Just in case you really meant 400 watts at 12VDC then thats about 34 amps
>and you can get away with #4 copper
>Eric
>
>
| |
| Scott Willing 2005-09-24, 11:21 am |
| On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:53:06 GMT, Ecnerwal
<LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote:
>In article <kFXYe.24569$sx2.21186@fed1read02>,
> "Jack Russell" <jack_russell@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>If you are in the USA, the NEC will tell you what the minimum required
>size of wire is. Depends on your amperage, which depends on your
>voltage...
>
>33 feet of 1-1/2" pipe sounds like an educational experience in how
>expensive being cheap can be waiting to happen. Probably not waiting
>long...
1-1/2" sch 40 pipe is the design tower material according to the
manufacturer.
-=s
| |
| Scott Willing 2005-09-24, 11:21 am |
| On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:17:43 -0700, "Jack Russell"
<jack_russell@cox.net> wrote:
>I am in the design and planning stages of installing a tower for a 400w
>Air-X wind generator. I need some input...How tall would you dare go using
>1-1/2" sch 40 galv. pipe and if the run from the base of the tower to my
>batteries is 150 feet, what conductor wire AGW would you recommend. Can I go
>one size smaller with the ground? One more thing, minimum wire size for the
>guys
>
>I was thinking 33 feet tall, and 4 AGW for the conductor... and 8 lengths
>(2 on each side) of 3/16" cable for the guys
>
>Thanks, Paul...
Southwest Windpower's site (http://www.windenergy.com) sells kits for
27 and 45' towers (everything but the pipe and anchors). Even if
you're rolling your own, the diagrams and downloadable manuals would
be extremely useful. (E.g. for the 45' kit, the manual is:
http://www.windenergy.com/AIR_Land_...5_Manual_II.pdf)
A FAQ refers to a chart of recommended wire sizes. This may be in the
Air-X manual; I didn't run across it on a quick cruise of the site.
Interesting to note one of their FAQ's:
----
The recommended wire sizes on your chart seem small for 400 Watts
output. Why is that?
Because the output of the AIR-X follows the cubic power in the wind,
the output increases rapidly with increasing wind speed until
over-speed stall occurs and the output power drops off to about 75
watts. The wiring could be sized for the maximum current output of the
turbine, but this output is seen primarily in gusty conditions.
We have recommended wire sizes that are intentionally small to save
the customer from spending a lot of money on wiring, while still
experiencing no more than a 5% annual energy loss due to resistive
line losses. In most cases this will be acceptable for local electric
codes – please contact your installer or local electrician to be
certain of your area’s specific requirement.
----
Translation: don't blow too much dough on wire designed to carry
current that you'll rarely (if ever) see.
-=s
| |
| Scott Willing 2005-09-24, 11:21 am |
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:08:31 GMT, "Vaughn"
<vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net> wrote:
>
>"Bernard Bélisle" <belisleb@webnet.qc.ca> wrote in message
>news:dh2r35$bir$1@utornnr1pp.grouptelecom.net...
>
> I suggest that you google on "Rohn 25 tower". That is a type of tower that
>is very commonly used for TV and 2-way radio. You can buy it new in 10-foot
>sections, or find it used. They make special top sections that end in a socket
>for a pipe, and special bottom mounting sections as well as brackets and other
>accessories.
>
> I don't have any right now (so don't ask) but I have had trouble selling
>the used stuff for $10.00 a section. I don't have any idea what the wind load
>of your generator is, but the engineering data for Rohn towers is readily
>available and quite readable. Rohn also makes similar tower sections in larger
>sizes.
>
>Vaughn
>
I am curious about the attaction to this type of tower vs a simple
tilt-up guyed pipe that enables you to stay on the ground when working
on the turbine.
Maybe other folks like wrestling heavy hardware at heights more than I
would. I would also think a guyed pole would be stronger for the
overall material used, but I'm just going on instinct here.
If guy wires were a problem, I can see the attraction of a
free-standing tower, but that doesn't seem to be the case for the OP.
This isn't a flame, I'm genuinely curious. I'm evaluating our site for
wind and the problem I face is the idea spot for a tower is on a small
hill, meaning guy wires are going to have to be a lot longer (anchor
points down-hill) than they would be on the flat. So far I haven't
found any information addressing this particular situation, if indeed
it warrants any unique consideration - not that I've looked all that
hard yet.
-=s
| |
| Vaughn 2005-09-24, 12:21 pm |
|
"Scott Willing" <NOTwilling2BSPAMMED@mts.net> wrote in message
news:tgnaj1dpiid8ae34vlofq10bv4l864b037@4ax.com...
>
> I am curious about the attaction to this type of tower vs a simple
> tilt-up guyed pipe that enables you to stay on the ground when working
> on the turbine.
I was simply responding to the post about TV towers. I don't pretend to be
an expert on wind generators, but have a bit of professional experience with
towers to share. One advantage of a tower over a pole is that it allows you
easy access for routine maintenance and troubleshooting if you don't mind a bit
of climbing.
>
> Maybe other folks like wrestling heavy hardware at heights more than I
> would. I would also think a guyed pole would be stronger for the
> overall material used, but I'm just going on instinct here.
I am not an engineer, so whatever I say on that point would have little
significance. I can tell you that the pole will have less wind load and less
visual impact compared to a tower.
> This isn't a flame, I'm genuinely curious. I'm evaluating our site for
> wind and the problem I face is the idea spot for a tower is on a small
> hill, meaning guy wires are going to have to be a lot longer (anchor
> points down-hill) than they would be on the flat. So far I haven't
> found any information addressing this particular situation, if indeed
> it warrants any unique consideration - not that I've looked all that
> hard yet.
The traditional fix for that situation is to mount sturdy poles just
forward of where the guy wires are anchored to the ground. The guy wires are
fastened to the top of the pole and then go down abruptly to the ground anchor.
This gives you a better angle on the guy wires and also raises the guy wires
above the ground for convenience and safety. Way too many towers have been
brought down by a careless driver or equipment operator snagging a guy wire.
Vaughn
>
> -=s
>
| |
| Jack Russell 2005-09-24, 1:21 pm |
| Thanks for all the thoughtful input. I apologize for not including more
information initially about the specifics of the Air-X generator; I assumed
that the specifications were better known, again my apologies. I am
considering a 12v unit because I have a small 100w. existing PV system with
Trojan T-105 batteries, but need to augment and enhance the system with a
little wind. My spot is totally off-grid and I enjoy the challenge of
producing power on my own. I DO NOT claim to have all the answers and
appreciate all your solid input. I just got a little "Ticked" at "ecnerwal"
terse non-productive comment. Oh well, maybe I was just having a bad day.
The property is 20 acres, located west of Cedar City, Utah. Solar loading is
pretty good in the summer for my small system. As the days get shorter I can
see a loss in solar output (input?), thus the need for a little wind. There
is more wind there than I initially realized so it appears that this little
generator will be just fine. With the cost of another 100w or so PV panel, I
think this 400w windset, for about $500 is a bargain, even if it really only
puts out 200w reliably. I already have all the pipe and most of the hardware
to cobble together a tower (junk collector??) I do not live on the property;
it is just a weekend retreat with a travel trailer.
Does anyone have any "Real Life" experience with this 400w 12v Air-X
generator unit?? Like I said, I don't know it all and I am just trolling for
information.
Paul.
"Scott Willing" <NOTwilling2BSPAMMED@mts.net> wrote in message
news:u0naj1p7rd7eef1vhqj4ivccs8l4aklm7l@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:17:43 -0700, "Jack Russell"
> <jack_russell@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> Southwest Windpower's site (http://www.windenergy.com) sells kits for
> 27 and 45' towers (everything but the pipe and anchors). Even if
> you're rolling your own, the diagrams and downloadable manuals would
> be extremely useful. (E.g. for the 45' kit, the manual is:
> http://www.windenergy.com/AIR_Land_...5_Manual_II.pdf)
>
> A FAQ refers to a chart of recommended wire sizes. This may be in the
> Air-X manual; I didn't run across it on a quick cruise of the site.
>
> Interesting to note one of their FAQ's:
>
> ----
> The recommended wire sizes on your chart seem small for 400 Watts
> output. Why is that?
> Because the output of the AIR-X follows the cubic power in the wind,
> the output increases rapidly with increasing wind speed until
> over-speed stall occurs and the output power drops off to about 75
> watts. The wiring could be sized for the maximum current output of the
> turbine, but this output is seen primarily in gusty conditions.
>
> We have recommended wire sizes that are intentionally small to save
> the customer from spending a lot of money on wiring, while still
> experiencing no more than a 5% annual energy loss due to resistive
> line losses. In most cases this will be acceptable for local electric
> codes - please contact your installer or local electrician to be
> certain of your area's specific requirement.
> ----
>
> Translation: don't blow too much dough on wire designed to carry
> current that you'll rarely (if ever) see.
>
> -=s
>
>
>
>
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-24, 7:21 pm |
| Jack Russell wrote:
> Thanks for all the thoughtful input. I apologize for not including more
> information initially about the specifics of the Air-X generator; I assumed
> that the specifications were better known, again my apologies. I am
> considering a 12v unit because I have a small 100w. existing PV system with
> Trojan T-105 batteries, but need to augment and enhance the system with a
> little wind. My spot is totally off-grid and I enjoy the challenge of
> producing power on my own. I DO NOT claim to have all the answers and
> appreciate all your solid input. I just got a little "Ticked" at "ecnerwal"
> terse non-productive comment. Oh well, maybe I was just having a bad day.
>
>
>
> The property is 20 acres, located west of Cedar City, Utah. Solar loading is
> pretty good in the summer for my small system. As the days get shorter I can
> see a loss in solar output (input?), thus the need for a little wind. There
> is more wind there than I initially realized so it appears that this little
> generator will be just fine. With the cost of another 100w or so PV panel, I
> think this 400w windset, for about $500 is a bargain, even if it really only
> puts out 200w reliably. I already have all the pipe and most of the hardware
> to cobble together a tower (junk collector??) I do not live on the property;
> it is just a weekend retreat with a travel trailer.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any "Real Life" experience with this 400w 12v Air-X
> generator unit?? Like I said, I don't know it all and I am just trolling for
> information.
>
>
>
> Paul.
>
I have a 300 watt AIR 303. Wouldn't buy another, the blades are too
small to catch enough wind for anything useful.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-24, 8:21 pm |
| I also hear that their little cut in logo in the tail makes a lot of
whistling noise.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:mzjZe.13285$H24.4160@fe11.lga...
Jack Russell wrote:
> Thanks for all the thoughtful input. I apologize for not including more
> information initially about the specifics of the Air-X generator; I
assumed
> that the specifications were better known, again my apologies. I am
> considering a 12v unit because I have a small 100w. existing PV system
with
> Trojan T-105 batteries, but need to augment and enhance the system with a
> little wind. My spot is totally off-grid and I enjoy the challenge of
> producing power on my own. I DO NOT claim to have all the answers and
> appreciate all your solid input. I just got a little "Ticked" at
"ecnerwal"
> terse non-productive comment. Oh well, maybe I was just having a bad day.
>
>
>
> The property is 20 acres, located west of Cedar City, Utah. Solar loading
is
> pretty good in the summer for my small system. As the days get shorter I
can
> see a loss in solar output (input?), thus the need for a little wind.
There
> is more wind there than I initially realized so it appears that this
little
> generator will be just fine. With the cost of another 100w or so PV panel,
I
> think this 400w windset, for about $500 is a bargain, even if it really
only
> puts out 200w reliably. I already have all the pipe and most of the
hardware
> to cobble together a tower (junk collector??) I do not live on the
property;
> it is just a weekend retreat with a travel trailer.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any "Real Life" experience with this 400w 12v Air-X
> generator unit?? Like I said, I don't know it all and I am just trolling
for
> information.
>
>
>
> Paul.
>
I have a 300 watt AIR 303. Wouldn't buy another, the blades are too
small to catch enough wind for anything useful.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-24, 9:21 pm |
| Solar Flare wrote:
> I also hear that their little cut in logo in the tail makes a lot of
> whistling noise.
>
Not that I've heard. The "blatting" of the speed regulation is the most
disturbing, when there happens to be enough wind to cause it.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-24, 9:21 pm |
| "speed regulation". Is that the furling action of the turbine?
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:JrlZe.2177$dl2.808@fe08.lga...
Solar Flare wrote:
> I also hear that their little cut in logo in the tail makes a lot of
> whistling noise.
>
Not that I've heard. The "blatting" of the speed regulation is the most
disturbing, when there happens to be enough wind to cause it.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:09:43 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I also hear that their little cut in logo in the tail makes a lot of
>whistling noise.
That can be cured by smearing peanut butter on the trailing edge of
the cut. There, now you've heard it.
Wayne
| |
|
|
| Solar Flare 2005-09-24, 11:21 pm |
| Hard to whistle with a mouth full of peanut butter?
LOL
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:n6qbj110jesfr7dc54i1qi5dbk492oudfj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:09:43 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I also hear that their little cut in logo in the tail makes a lot of
>whistling noise.
That can be cured by smearing peanut butter on the trailing edge of
the cut. There, now you've heard it.
Wayne
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-24, 11:21 pm |
| ahhh. the old soft blade furl.
I guess thew trouble with any of these furl techniques is that they have a
linear response istead of a snap action...furl or no furl. I have no
experience with this as yet but it would seem to me that any kind of turning
to the side would make a lot of undesirable racket.
This leads me to believe that loading the crap out of it in high winds would
be the best, especially if you can use the energy some place like preheating
hydronic heating water in a tank.
"Honey! The wind is high! Turn on the dryer now!"
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:1ZlZe.2183$dl2.2135@fe08.lga...
Solar Flare wrote:
> "speed regulation". Is that the furling action of the turbine?
yes, the blades flatten out and "blat".
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-24, 11:21 pm |
| Solar Flare wrote:
> ahhh. the old soft blade furl.
>
> I guess thew trouble with any of these furl techniques is that they have a
> linear response istead of a snap action...furl or no furl. I have no
> experience with this as yet but it would seem to me that any kind of turning
> to the side would make a lot of undesirable racket.
>
> This leads me to believe that loading the crap out of it in high winds would
> be the best, especially if you can use the energy some place like preheating
> hydronic heating water in a tank.
>
> "Honey! The wind is high! Turn on the dryer now!"
>
>
so many folks complained about the noise, that the AIR-X eliminated the
blade flatteners, and now just shut off at high speeds, reducing output
even further.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-25, 12:21 am |
| Maybe if they had a calibratable shut off mechanism it could be tuned for
it's rated output.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:AxnZe.2193$dl2.1493@fe08.lga...
Solar Flare wrote:
> ahhh. the old soft blade furl.
>
> I guess thew trouble with any of these furl techniques is that they have a
> linear response istead of a snap action...furl or no furl. I have no
> experience with this as yet but it would seem to me that any kind of
turning
> to the side would make a lot of undesirable racket.
>
> This leads me to believe that loading the crap out of it in high winds
would
> be the best, especially if you can use the energy some place like
preheating
> hydronic heating water in a tank.
>
> "Honey! The wind is high! Turn on the dryer now!"
>
>
so many folks complained about the noise, that the AIR-X eliminated the
blade flatteners, and now just shut off at high speeds, reducing output
even further.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
| Solar Flare 2005-09-25, 12:21 am |
| I guess if you try to absorb all that energy you will burn out the windings.
Sounds like a properly balanced blade design and winding capabilty need to
be engineered everytime. Or get a larger generator with a smaller prop and
enough emergency loads to suck it all up no matter what.
I have been thinking of getting a turbine just to run a heating element in
my hydronics heat system in my new home I will build. Would this be a waste
of energy converting to electric then to heat? It just seems so simple to
hook up and let it fly. A overvoltage (59) detector could cut in another
element on an electric water heater tank as needed. This would all depend on
the generator/alternator being able to handle the increased production
without burning out.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:M4oZe.2196$dl2.1345@fe08.lga...
Solar Flare wrote:
> Maybe if they had a calibratable shut off mechanism it could be tuned for
> it's rated output.
>
It's better to flatten the blades, and keep producing, than to shut it
down when you finally get good wind.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| wmbjk 2005-09-25, 11:21 am |
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:51:39 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:09:43 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:n6qbj110jesfr7dc54i1qi5dbk492oudfj@4ax.com...
>
>That can be cured by smearing peanut butter on the trailing edge of
>the cut. There, now you've heard it.
>
>Wayne
>
>Hard to whistle with a mouth full of peanut butter?
>
>LOL
What's even harder is to be able to read a post by someone you claim
to have killfiled several times, each time under a different one of
your many user-names.
Wayne
| |
| Scott Willing 2005-09-25, 11:21 am |
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:52:44 GMT, "Vaughn"
<vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net> wrote:
>
>"Scott Willing" <NOTwilling2BSPAMMED@mts.net> wrote in message
>news:tgnaj1dpiid8ae34vlofq10bv4l864b037@4ax.com...
[snipped stuff about free-standing vs tilt-up towers]
>
>
> The traditional fix for that situation is to mount sturdy poles just
>forward of where the guy wires are anchored to the ground. The guy wires are
>fastened to the top of the pole and then go down abruptly to the ground anchor.
>This gives you a better angle on the guy wires and also raises the guy wires
>above the ground for convenience and safety. Way too many towers have been
>brought down by a careless driver or equipment operator snagging a guy wire.
Interesting thought, thanks.
-=s
>
>Vaughn
>
>
>
| |
| George Ghio 2005-09-25, 1:21 pm |
|
Jack Russell wrote:
> I am in the design and planning stages of installing a tower for a 400w
> Air-X wind generator. I need some input...How tall would you dare go using
> 1-1/2" sch 40 galv. pipe and if the run from the base of the tower to my
> batteries is 150 feet, what conductor wire AGW would you recommend. Can I go
> one size smaller with the ground? One more thing, minimum wire size for the
> guys
>
> I was thinking 33 feet tall, and 4 AGW for the conductor... and 8 lengths
> (2 on each side) of 3/16" cable for the guys
>
> Thanks, Paul...
>
>
The Beaufort Wind Scale.
You might find it helpful. The AirX needs around 31 MPH to produce max
energy.
Do you have enough wind to make it worth the time and money?
FORCE EQUIVALENT SPEED DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR USE ON LAND
10 m above ground
miles/hour knots
0 0-1 0-1 Calm Calm; smoke rises vertical.
1 1-3 1-3 Light air Direction of wind shown by
smoke drift, but not by wind
vanes.
2 4-7 4-6 Light Breeze Wind felt on face; leaves
rustle; ordinary vanes moved
by wind.
3 8-12 7-10 Gentle Breeze Leaves and small twigs in
constant motion; wind extends
light flag.
4 13-18 11-16 Moderate Breeze Raises dust and loose paper;
small branches are moved.
5 19-24 17-21 Fresh Breeze Small trees in leaf begin to
sway; crested wavelets form on
inland waters.
6 25-31 22-27 Strong Breeze Large branches in motion;
whistling heard in telegraph
wires; umbrellas used with
difficulty.
7 32-38 28-33 Near Gale Whole trees in motion;
inconvenience
felt when walking
against the wind.
8 39-46 34-40 Gale Breaks twigs off trees;
generally impedes progress.
9 47-54 41-47 Severe Gale Slight structural damage
occurs
(chimney-pots and slates
removed).
10 55-63 48-55 Storm Seldom experienced inland;
trees
uprooted; considerable
structural
damage occurs.
11 64-72 56-63 Violent Storm Very rarely experienced;
accompanied by
wide-spread damage.
12 73-83 64-71 Hurricane --
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:15:04 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Jack Russell wrote:
Unless there's a height limit for some reason, I'd use one stick of 2"
and one of 1.5" for a total of 42' minimum. You could probably get
away without a gin pole at that height, but if you're going to have
one (and it's the nicest way to do it), then 3 sticks of tower would
be even better. The URL Scott posted is most helpful.
[color=darkred]
> and if the run from the base of the tower to my
>
>
>The Beaufort Wind Scale.
>
>You might find it helpful. The AirX needs around 31 MPH to produce max
>energy.
No. The AirX's max output comes at about 23 mph because the turbine is
designed to use braking to limit noise.
http://www.scoraigwind.com/gipe/
Wayne
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-25, 2:21 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> Solar Flare wrote:
I suppose it depends on your tolerance. I hear it, but not often and I
wouldn't consider it a lot.
[color=darkred]
> Not that I've heard. The "blatting" of the speed regulation is the most
> disturbing, when there happens to be enough wind to cause it.
The Air-X doesn't "blatt" (I assume you mean the intentional deformation of
the blades that the older SW Wind generators use), the Air-X "clunks" -
when the speed regulation turns on it uses hysteresis (thank God for good
spell checkers!) breaking with electrically brings the turbine to a stop
almost instantly.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-25, 2:21 pm |
| Scott Willing wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:08:31 GMT, "Vaughn"
> <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net> wrote:
>
>
> I am curious about the attaction to this type of tower vs a simple
> tilt-up guyed pipe that enables you to stay on the ground when working
> on the turbine.
Glad you asked. The thought of putting my Air-X at 50' or higher on a Rohn
tower scares the pants off me...
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-25, 2:21 pm |
| Eric wrote:
> Jack Russell wrote:
>
>
> You dont supply very much information so let me guess.
> 400 watt?
> 4 One Hundred Watt light bulbs? Or did you mean 4kw?
It's an Air-X - how much information did you need? It's 400W, just as he
said.
I think the "cheap" comment referred to the fact that if you're putting up a
tower, you really need to go higher than 33 feet. Should be 30' over _any_
surrounding obstructions.
> If you meant to generate at 240 volts AC then now thats a different
> story.
Pay attention.
--
derek
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-25, 3:21 pm |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I suppose it depends on your tolerance. I hear it, but not often and I
> wouldn't consider it a lot.
>
>
>
>
> The Air-X doesn't "blatt" (I assume you mean the intentional deformation of
> the blades that the older SW Wind generators use), the Air-X "clunks" -
> when the speed regulation turns on it uses hysteresis (thank God for good
> spell checkers!) breaking with electrically brings the turbine to a stop
> almost instantly.
I know the AIR X doesn't blatt. I was talking about my AIR 303. The AIR
X quits producing power to eliminate the noise. I'd rather have the
noise and still make power.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-09-25, 3:21 pm |
| Ecnerwal <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote:
> "Jack Russell" <jack_russell@cox.net> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>33 feet of 1-1/2" pipe sounds like an educational experience...
Sounds like he needs spreaders as well as guy wires, like feed mill pipes..
Nick
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-25, 3:21 pm |
| WTF are you on about now? Do you ever talk energy or just troll to be an
XXXXXXX? I have never killfiltered you but there is always a first time.
Until then Grow up.
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:fsidj11ci96lkb8u4cprv1kica16cltru0@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:15:04 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Jack Russell wrote:
using[color=darkred]
Unless there's a height limit for some reason, I'd use one stick of 2"
and one of 1.5" for a total of 42' minimum. You could probably get
away without a gin pole at that height, but if you're going to have
one (and it's the nicest way to do it), then 3 sticks of tower would
be even better. The URL Scott posted is most helpful.
[color=darkred]
> and if the run from the base of the tower to my
go[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
lengths[color=darkred]
>
>
>The Beaufort Wind Scale.
>
>You might find it helpful. The AirX needs around 31 MPH to produce max
>energy.
No. The AirX's max output comes at about 23 mph because the turbine is
designed to use braking to limit noise.
http://www.scoraigwind.com/gipe/
Wayne
| |
|
| On 25 Sep 2005 13:47:55 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>Ecnerwal <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote:
>
>
>
>Sounds like he needs spreaders as well as guy wires, like feed mill pipes..
>
>Nick
Perhaps you missed this earlier in the thread
http://www.windenergy.com/AIR_Land_...5_Manual_II.pdf It's a
detailed example of a simple and recommended tilting tower. Note the
basic layout on page 1, the pipe sizes on pages 7 and 8, and the gin
pole illustration on page 22.
Here's how I did a quicky temporary one for testing - one stick of 2"
planted in concrete. That pipe had 4 holes drilled near the top, with
nuts welded over the holes. A 1.5" stick was telescoped inside.
Standing on a ladder, I pulled the inner pipe out hand-over-hand, and
then used bolts to clamp it in place. Total height was over 30', and
even without guy wires it was OK in high winds. It did sway a bit
though, and I wouldn't recommend the method to anyone.
I've seen quite a few Airs on even flimsier homemade permanent towers,
and surprisingly they seem to do OK.
Wayne
| |
|
| On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:47:30 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:fsidj11ci96lkb8u4cprv1kica16cltru0@4ax.com...
>On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:15:04 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
>wrote:
>using
>
>Unless there's a height limit for some reason, I'd use one stick of 2"
>and one of 1.5" for a total of 42' minimum. You could probably get
>away without a gin pole at that height, but if you're going to have
>one (and it's the nicest way to do it), then 3 sticks of tower would
>be even better. The URL Scott posted is most helpful.
>
>go
>the
>lengths
[color=darkred]
>
>No. The AirX's max output comes at about 23 mph because the turbine is
>designed to use braking to limit noise.
>
>http://www.scoraigwind.com/gipe/
>
>
>Wayne
>
>WTF are you on about now?
What size pipe to use, and what wind speed an AirX produces at.
> Do you ever talk energy
I just did. Check the text you sloppily quoted above nitwit.
> or just troll to be an
>XXXXXXX? I have never killfiltered you
Gymmy, you've claimed to have killfiled me under so many of your
personas that I can't keep track. But here, see how no matter which
name you use, you always make the same stupid comment
http://tinyurl.com/coqf9
>but there is always a first time.
Oh please. Today's good for me. What's the holdup?
>Until then Grow up.
Oh no! Are you going to threaten again to send the cops to my place?
Wayne
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-09-25, 6:21 pm |
| Bernard Bélisle <belisleb@webnet.qc.ca> wrote:
>...As it is impossible theorically to obtain 400 watts of electrical
>charging energy from a 45 inches propeller diameter...
We might tether one to an airplane in flight :-)
Nick
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-25, 8:21 pm |
| I guess jet engines are too small to propel the crafts too.
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:dh7260$cj7@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
Bernard Bilisle <belisleb@webnet.qc.ca> wrote:
>...As it is impossible theorically to obtain 400 watts of electrical
>charging energy from a 45 inches propeller diameter...
We might tether one to an airplane in flight :-)
Nick
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-25, 8:21 pm |
| Another XXXXXXX proves himself again.
And look... He always uses the same name here too. He must be an XXXXXXX!
Do I have to explain that to you also? probably.
Have a nice day, troll boy.
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:jrudj1hm7o0j43d7v9rkga372cssh4kto5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:47:30 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:fsidj11ci96lkb8u4cprv1kica16cltru0@4ax.com...
>On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:15:04 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
>wrote:
>using
>
>Unless there's a height limit for some reason, I'd use one stick of 2"
>and one of 1.5" for a total of 42' minimum. You could probably get
>away without a gin pole at that height, but if you're going to have
>one (and it's the nicest way to do it), then 3 sticks of tower would
>be even better. The URL Scott posted is most helpful.
>
I[color=darkred]
>go
>the
>lengths
[color=darkred]
>
>No. The AirX's max output comes at about 23 mph because the turbine is
>designed to use braking to limit noise.
>
>http://www.scoraigwind.com/gipe/
>
>
>Wayne
>
>WTF are you on about now?
What size pipe to use, and what wind speed an AirX produces at.
> Do you ever talk energy
I just did. Check the text you sloppily quoted above nitwit.
> or just troll to be an
>XXXXXXX? I have never killfiltered you
Gymmy, you've claimed to have killfiled me under so many of your
personas that I can't keep track. But here, see how no matter which
name you use, you always make the same stupid comment
http://tinyurl.com/coqf9
>but there is always a first time.
Oh please. Today's good for me. What's the holdup?
>Until then Grow up.
Oh no! Are you going to threaten again to send the cops to my place?
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-09-25, 8:21 pm |
|
wmbjk wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:15:04 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Unless there's a height limit for some reason, I'd use one stick of 2"
> and one of 1.5" for a total of 42' minimum. You could probably get
> away without a gin pole at that height, but if you're going to have
> one (and it's the nicest way to do it), then 3 sticks of tower would
> be even better. The URL Scott posted is most helpful.
>
>
>
>
> No. The AirX's max output comes at about 23 mph because the turbine is
> designed to use braking to limit noise.
>
> http://www.scoraigwind.com/gipe/
>
>
> Wayne
Ah the numbers expert returns.
28 MPH in non turbulent air.
End of story.
http://www.cetsolar.com/windgen.htm.
Specifications
Rotor Diameter:
46" (1.14 meters)
Weight:
13 lbs (6 kg)
Start up wind speed:
7 mph (3 m/s)
Voltage:
12 & 24 VDC (36/48 VDC available soon)
Output:
400 watts at 28 mph (12.5 m/s)
Now, about that two days autonomy.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-25, 10:21 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> I know the AIR X doesn't blatt. I was talking about my AIR 303. The AIR
> X quits producing power to eliminate the noise.
Which it does very effectively...
> I'd rather have the noise and still make power.
In hindsight, so would I. My wife is extremely noise-intolerant, though, so
I probably made the right choice - at least in that size range. If my
neighbor ever gets his Whisper mounted, I might start working on her to get
one...
--
derek
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-25, 10:21 pm |
| So the Air X has had a vast design improvement over the Air 303?
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:hpcj03-37b.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca...
Steve Spence wrote:
> I know the AIR X doesn't blatt. I was talking about my AIR 303. The AIR
> X quits producing power to eliminate the noise.
Which it does very effectively...
> I'd rather have the noise and still make power.
In hindsight, so would I. My wife is extremely noise-intolerant, though, so
I probably made the right choice - at least in that size range. If my
neighbor ever gets his Whisper mounted, I might start working on her to get
one...
--
derek
| |
|
|
| Solar Flare 2005-09-25, 11:21 pm |
| I guess I find it hard to trust any company that puts out a complete fraud
machine like that no matter what the propaganda later. It is just too costly
to buy one design, pay for and install a tower and guys and then find out it
is garbage. The information and reviews are starting to appear but it has
been slow and I have heard too many horror stories lately.
The department stores are starting to sell them now so the price may come
down for the whole market somewhat.
Imagine the large blades slowing to a readible speed only to see a Walmart
advert?...LOL
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:5OHZe.2316$dl2.1266@fe08.lga...
Solar Flare wrote:
> So the Air X has had a vast design improvement over the Air 303?
>
Depends on what your goal is. Mine is power production. So I'd say no .....
If i was to spend more money on my unit, I'd upgrade to a a 403, not the
X. Instead, I'm going with http://www.otherpower.com/17page1.html
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| wmbjk 2005-09-25, 11:21 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:46:28 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>28 MPH in non turbulent air.
>
>End of story.
>
>http://www.cetsolar.com/windgen.htm.
>Specifications
>
>Rotor Diameter:
>46" (1.14 meters)
>
>Weight:
>13 lbs (6 kg)
>
>Start up wind speed:
>7 mph (3 m/s)
>
>Voltage:
>12 & 24 VDC (36/48 VDC available soon)
>
>Output:
>400 watts at 28 mph (12.5 m/s)
No, those are the fluff specs, and you should know better than to
quote them as meaningful or more realistic than the very well known
and accepted demonstrated results here
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/sm_AirXtest.html or here
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34756.pdf. Although on second
thought, it makes perfect sense that you'd deny nrel test results. The
only question is whether you'll call them cowboys, wankers, or some
thing else equally silly. Or perhaps this will be another case where
you will claim to have mystery "friends" who have results that differ
from industry accepted ones?
Unless you have some accredited and verifiable test results to the
contrary, the undeniable fact is that the AirX brakes at just over 20
mph, and its output at that speed is below 200 Watts. You could double
the wind speed, the max will still be the same. If it didn't brake at
20, it would blaat just like its predecessor. Anyone with common sense
would realise that braking the AirX is the only way it was made
quieter.
The older Air 403 with a similar rotor, but without the automatic
braking feature, can actually make 400 Watts in 30+ mph winds.
Wayne
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-26, 12:21 am |
| Just need to spray starch those blades so they don't flatten out so
quickly....LOL
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:pskej19ljmftr4q1p8nhm4vckm6m9n3td2@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:46:28 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
Unless you have some accredited and verifiable test results to the
contrary, the undeniable fact is that the AirX brakes at just over 20
mph, and its output at that speed is below 200 Watts. You could double
the wind speed, the max will still be the same. If it didn't brake at
20, it would blaat just like its predecessor. Anyone with common sense
would realise that braking the AirX is the only way it was made
quieter.
The older Air 403 with a similar rotor, but without the automatic
braking feature, can actually make 400 Watts in 30+ mph winds.
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-09-26, 3:21 am |
| wmbjk wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:46:28 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, those are the fluff specs, and you should know better than to
> quote them as meaningful or more realistic than the very well known
> and accepted demonstrated results here
> http://www.wind-works.org/articles/sm_AirXtest.html or here
> http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34756.pdf. Although on second
> thought, it makes perfect sense that you'd deny nrel test results. The
> only question is whether you'll call them cowboys, wankers, or some
> thing else equally silly. Or perhaps this will be another case where
> you will claim to have mystery "friends" who have results that differ
> from industry accepted ones?
>
> Unless you have some accredited and verifiable test results to the
> contrary, the undeniable fact is that the AirX brakes at just over 20
> mph, and its output at that speed is below 200 Watts. You could double
> the wind speed, the max will still be the same. If it didn't brake at
> 20, it would blaat just like its predecessor. Anyone with common sense
> would realise that braking the AirX is the only way it was made
> quieter.
>
> The older Air 403 with a similar rotor, but without the automatic
> braking feature, can actually make 400 Watts in 30+ mph winds.
>
> Wayne
Page 5 section 4 paragraph 2
Please note that this test and the test report are not an accredited
power performance test/test
report because parts of the NWTC quality assurance system were not followed.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34756.pdf
Still laughing. You really should learn to read.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-26, 11:21 am |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> Solar Flare wrote:
>
> Depends on what your goal is. Mine is power production. So I'd say no
> .....
>
> If i was to spend more money on my unit, I'd upgrade to a a 403, not the
> X. Instead, I'm going with http://www.otherpower.com/17page1.html
I agree. In my wife's case, quiet was the goal, so we got an Air-X. It'll
pay for itself, but not quickly.
--
derek
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:57:44 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>wmbjk wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>
>Page 5 section 4 paragraph 2
>
>
>Please note that this test and the test report are not an accredited
>power performance test/test
>report because parts of the NWTC quality assurance system were not followed.
>
>http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34756.pdf
Unfortunately, *you* are not accredited for anything AFAIK, and even
your membership in the human race would require confirmation before it
would accepted by most readers. So the issue of lack-of-accreditation
is cancelled out, and we are left to compare two competing opinions.
One is from Paul Gipe and the NREL, and based on their substantial
efforts and expertise. Both reached nearly identical and logical
conclusions. The competing opinion is illogical, directly contradicts
the other two, and not surprisingly is based solely on the as-usual
odd-man-out contrariness of one self-titled "consultant" who doesn't
even own a wind turbine.
>Still laughing.
That's easier for you than admitting to yet another blunder I suppose.
But you may have noticed that while you've been wasting your time once
again denying the undeniable and further crippling your credibility in
the process, others have accepted the facts and used them to further
sensible discussion.
> You really should learn to read.
You might take your own advice. The performance of the AirX is
years-old news, having been discussed at length many times on the
AWEA-Wind-Home group. The performance penalty of the braking has even
been acknowledged by a frequent contributor - one Andy Kruse, CEO of
SWWP. I'm sure you'd like to straighten out *his* misconceptions.
Given that you're a glutton for punishment, you could post your claims
over there as well and become a laughing stock in yet another venue.
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-09-27, 3:21 am |
|
wmbjk wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:57:44 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, *you* are not accredited for anything AFAIK, and even
> your membership in the human race would require confirmation before it
> would accepted by most readers. So the issue of lack-of-accreditation
> is cancelled out, and we are left to compare two competing opinions.
> One is from Paul Gipe and the NREL, and based on their substantial
> efforts and expertise. Both reached nearly identical and logical
> conclusions. The competing opinion is illogical, directly contradicts
> the other two, and not surprisingly is based solely on the as-usual
> odd-man-out contrariness of one self-titled "consultant" who doesn't
> even own a wind turbine.
>
Another direct hit on Wayne. How can you tell? Because he is foaming at
the mouth again.[color=darkred]
>
[color=darkred]
Dump his crap.
The nrel was testing for noise. This is what they had to say on the test:
In the period from 14 October 2002 to 16 January 2003, an early
production version of the AIR-X
was installed at the NWTC test site for acoustic noise testing. In
addition to the signals required
for the noise testing, additional instrumentation that allowed power
performance testing in
accordance with IEC 61400-12 [1] was added. The results of that test are
described in this report.
Please note that this test and the test report are not an accredited
power performance test/test
report because parts of the NWTC quality assurance system were not
followed.
As can be seen the power test was not accredited.
The other report by Paul Gipe States that:
The AirX.ABeta004, a preproduction version tested during December 2003,
performs better than previous versions of the AirX. This version meets
the manufacturer's power curve up to about 24 mph where the controller
begins to regulate the turbine.
This is quite a bit different from Wayne's:
No. The AirX's max output comes at about 23 mph because the turbine is
designed to use braking to limit noise.
The Air X is designed to produce a maximum 400W, but because of noise
problems brakes at 24MPH wind speed. It gets nowhere near its max out
put. It does meet the power curve for the wind speed of 24MPH.
The report also says:
At rated wind speed the AirX delivers only 103 W 99 W, and 51 W
respectively, not the 400-525 W advertised. In the worst case, the
AirX.3, the turbine only produces 10% of the advertised instantaneous
power claimed. This is probably a record of some sort.
This information is consistent with data I have collected from sites
with an Air X.
What it comes down to is that if you want a 400W wind gen then you would
do well to stay away from the Air brand.
Wayne can rant and rave all he wants. But what started his little dummy
spit was my asking the OP the question:
"Do you have enough wind to make it worth the time and money?"
So perhaps someone should buy Wayne a box of tissues so he can wipe the
foam from his mouth before somebody puts him down as a rabid dog.
| |
|
|
> Hi Paul I have just rigged up the same system that you are refering to.
I have about the same run length 150ft to the batteries. Not sure about
the AWG but im using 10mm multistrand welding cable. Living in the
lincolnshire fens (UK) I have very few wind obstructions and seem to be
getting away with a 25ft tower. Ok so youve got to allow the system to
be big enough to cope with the maximum o/p 400/12 = 33 Amps. However
with the Airx 400w this is never achieved. The most ive had out of mine
is 20 amps on a VERY windy day and then that was instantaneous not
constant. What you have to remember is that as soon as you do get any
high wind thus high Amps the Air x will usually regulate its self quite
quickly and stop generating, so the upshot is even if you are pushing
high amps through the cable it will only be for 10 seconds or so due to
the regulation. A point of interest on a breezy day that is still
comfortable to sit outsie on, you will be generating little more than 2
or 3 Amps average.
Take a look at my rig www.glynnpout.com
Ive used a fiberglass lamppost mounted on an 8ft equalateral triangular
frame. Ive put 6 guys on it but the weight of the frame seems to be
stable enough in even the strongest winds to support the genny without
the guys. Oh its on wheels aswell just incase I found a better place
for it to go
[color=darkred]
> Does anyone have any "Real Life" experience with this 400w 12v Air-X
> generator unit?? Like I said, I don't know it all and I am just trolling for
> information.
>
>
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-27, 7:21 pm |
| Can we stop talking about Wayne here and stick with real information?
Who else cares about the troll boy?
"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
news:4338d84d_1@news.chariot.net.au...
wmbjk wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:57:44 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
followed.[color=darkred]
>
>
> Unfortunately, *you* are not accredited for anything AFAIK, and even
> your membership in the human race would require confirmation before it
> would accepted by most readers. So the issue of lack-of-accreditation
> is cancelled out, and we are left to compare two competing opinions.
> One is from Paul Gipe and the NREL, and based on their substantial
> efforts and expertise. Both reached nearly identical and logical
> conclusions. The competing opinion is illogical, directly contradicts
> the other two, and not surprisingly is based solely on the as-usual
> odd-man-out contrariness of one self-titled "consultant" who doesn't
> even own a wind turbine.
>
Another direct hit on Wayne. How can you tell? Because he is foaming at
the mouth again.[color=darkred]
>
[color=darkred]
Dump his crap.
The nrel was testing for noise. This is what they had to say on the test:
In the period from 14 October 2002 to 16 January 2003, an early
production version of the AIR-X
was installed at the NWTC test site for acoustic noise testing. In
addition to the signals required
for the noise testing, additional instrumentation that allowed power
performance testing in
accordance with IEC 61400-12 [1] was added. The results of that test are
described in this report.
Please note that this test and the test report are not an accredited
power performance test/test
report because parts of the NWTC quality assurance system were not
followed.
As can be seen the power test was not accredited.
The other report by Paul Gipe States that:
The AirX.ABeta004, a preproduction version tested during December 2003,
performs better than previous versions of the AirX. This version meets
the manufacturer's power curve up to about 24 mph where the controller
begins to regulate the turbine.
This is quite a bit different from Wayne's:
No. The AirX's max output comes at about 23 mph because the turbine is
designed to use braking to limit noise.
The Air X is designed to produce a maximum 400W, but because of noise
problems brakes at 24MPH wind speed. It gets nowhere near its max out
put. It does meet the power curve for the wind speed of 24MPH.
The report also says:
At rated wind speed the AirX delivers only 103 W 99 W, and 51 W
respectively, not the 400-525 W advertised. In the worst case, the
AirX.3, the turbine only produces 10% of the advertised instantaneous
power claimed. This is probably a record of some sort.
This information is consistent with data I have collected from sites
with an Air X.
What it comes down to is that if you want a 400W wind gen then you would
do well to stay away from the Air brand.
Wayne can rant and rave all he wants. But what started his little dummy
spit was my asking the OP the question:
"Do you have enough wind to make it worth the time and money?"
So perhaps someone should buy Wayne a box of tissues so he can wipe the
foam from his mouth before somebody puts him down as a rabid dog.
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-10-01, 12:21 pm |
|
"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F86dnYwNju3d-qreRVn-pA@golden.net...
> Just need to spray starch those blades so they don't flatten out so
> quickly....LOL
>
> "wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pskej19ljmftr4q1p8nhm4vckm6m9n3td2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:46:28 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> Unless you have some accredited and verifiable test results to the
> contrary, the undeniable fact is that the AirX brakes at just over 20
> mph, and its output at that speed is below 200 Watts. You could double
> the wind speed, the max will still be the same. If it didn't brake at
> 20, it would blaat just like its predecessor. Anyone with common sense
> would realise that braking the AirX is the only way it was made
> quieter.
>
> The older Air 403 with a similar rotor, but without the automatic
> braking feature, can actually make 400 Watts in 30+ mph winds.
>
> Wayne
>
>
A low-tech way to achieve both low noise and high torque is a multi-blade
windmill. These have as many as 12-15 blades aranged in a tight circle.
These were the norm on windmills a century ago, and have been shunned for
years in favor of 2, 3 and 4-blade props that run much faster.
These old-style windmills have several advantages, such as creating more
torque in low winds, don't require high-speed bearings, and need no speed
brake, because the inherent drag at higher speed prevents it from
over-revving in high winds.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-10-01, 1:21 pm |
| JoeSixPack wrote:
....
> A low-tech way to achieve both low noise and high torque is a multi-blade
> windmill. These have as many as 12-15 blades aranged in a tight circle.
> These were the norm on windmills a century ago, and have been shunned for
> years in favor of 2, 3 and 4-blade props that run much faster.
> These old-style windmills have several advantages, such as creating more
> torque in low winds, don't require high-speed bearings, and need no speed
> brake, because the inherent drag at higher speed prevents it from
> over-revving in high winds.
Just few points, even the 2 bladed wind turbines don't turn at such
a rate as to require especially high speed bearings. Larger turbines
turn at slower RPMS so you would only have speed issues on small
turbines. Lastly, if the goal is to make electricity then the faster
the turbine spins, the smaller and lighter you can make the generator.
Anthony
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-01, 2:21 pm |
| This means "less-efficient"?
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B4ydnYpuJ9v8LqPeRVn-1w@comcast.com...
JoeSixPack wrote:
....
> A low-tech way to achieve both low noise and high torque is a multi-blade
> windmill. These have as many as 12-15 blades aranged in a tight circle.
> These were the norm on windmills a century ago, and have been shunned for
> years in favor of 2, 3 and 4-blade props that run much faster.
> These old-style windmills have several advantages, such as creating more
> torque in low winds, don't require high-speed bearings, and need no speed
> brake, because the inherent drag at higher speed prevents it from
> over-revving in high winds.
Just few points, even the 2 bladed wind turbines don't turn at such
a rate as to require especially high speed bearings. Larger turbines
turn at slower RPMS so you would only have speed issues on small
turbines. Lastly, if the goal is to make electricity then the faster
the turbine spins, the smaller and lighter you can make the generator.
Anthony
| |
|
| On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 15:12:30 GMT, "JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net>
wrote:
>A low-tech way to achieve both low noise and high torque is a multi-blade
>windmill. These have as many as 12-15 blades aranged in a tight circle.
>These were the norm on windmills a century ago, and have been shunned for
>years in favor of 2, 3 and 4-blade props that run much faster.
The myth that more blades is better is exploited by a number of
smaller turbine companies. The reason the major manufacturers "shun"
the design is because it's deficient in so many ways.
>These old-style windmills have several advantages, such as creating more
>torque in low winds, don't require high-speed bearings, and need no speed
>brake, because the inherent drag at higher speed prevents it from
>over-revving in high winds.
Such mills sometimes have manual brakes so that they can be saved from
overspeed in very high winds. A friend told me a story about one on
which the brake failed upon application, and all he could do was watch
(from a distance) as the mill self-destructed.
Rotor speeds aren't that high on home-sized turbines and the bearings
are nothing special. The root cause of the Air units' noise problem
isn't high rotor speed, but the fact that they're designed to a low
price point. More expensive designs have furling mechanisms which
don't really add all that much to their cost, but increase their value
a *lot*. For example, I get perhaps ten times more energy from my
Whisper 1000 than I do from my Air 403, but the Whisper only cost
about three times as much. In addition to the larger rotor, higher
power, and lower noise, the Whisper also came with a metered control
panel. But such turbines don't have the throw-away up-front price of
an Air unit or its "friendly" appearance.
Here's a link to some interesting audio and video files of various
turbines. http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen/Audio_Video.htm Near
the bottom of the page are two low-res videos of my turbines in high
wind. Disregard the apparent rotor speed, they only look slow because
of the file compression. Play the second clip (Air turned off) first,
and note that the Whisper is well-furled, but that no turbine noise
can be heard above the background noise. Now play the first clip (Air
turned on), and notice the remarkable change in noise. That noise is
the reason SWWP designed the AirX and chose to suffer a performance
penalty by using rotor braking. They've managed to keep the price and
noise low, but decreased the value even further for those who have
windy sites.
Wayne
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-02, 9:21 pm |
| JoeSixPack wrote:
> A low-tech way to achieve both low noise and high torque is a multi-blade
> windmill. These have as many as 12-15 blades aranged in a tight circle.
> These were the norm on windmills a century ago, and have been shunned for
> years in favor of 2, 3 and 4-blade props that run much faster.
> These old-style windmills have several advantages, such as creating more
> torque in low winds, don't require high-speed bearings, and need no speed
> brake, because the inherent drag at higher speed prevents it from
> over-revving in high winds.
>
>
And they are only good for water pumping, not electrical generation.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-03, 7:21 am |
|
Steve Spence wrote:
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
> And they are only good for water pumping, not electrical generation.
>
>
Why do you come here? Just to flaunt your ignorance.
Some of those old wind mills were huge and ran factories. And why do you
think they were called mills?
They were not used to just pump water.
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-03, 11:21 am |
| On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:53:43 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>Steve Spence wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>Why do you come here? Just to flaunt your ignorance.
A much better question for you than for him. Perhaps you could answer
it directly and honestly.
>Some of those old wind mills were huge and ran factories. And why do you
>think they were called mills?
>
>They were not used to just pump water.
Joe wasn't promoting many-bladed mills for running obsolete factories,
but for (check the newsgroup name) home electric power generation in
the present. They are *very* ill-suited for that purpose. Except for
water pumping, the type is mostly offered by quacks fond of making
outrageous performance claims. So considering the context, Steve's
comment was quite correct.
Joe didn't provide any currently-available examples, but since you
seem to agree with him, you might post links to some many-bladed home
electric power mills. Then we can compare them to fewer-bladed models
on the basis of price, performance, efficiency, longevity, etc.
Wayne
| |
|
| Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
news:6o_%e.39097$TA2.1690@fe09.lga:
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
> And they are only good for water pumping, not electrical
> generation.
>
>
I don't know where you get your info, but in the twenties and
thirties it was even money as to whether one of those windmills was
pumping water or running a Wincharger generator. They were quite
popular, at least in the Plains states where it was a long time
before REA (Rural Electrification Authority) got lines out to all
those homes way out there.
And BTW, even if they were slower, the prudent owner either cocked
the tail a ways to slow the fan down or turned it all the way off
if high winds were expected.
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-03, 9:21 pm |
|
wmbjk wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:53:43 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A much better question for you than for him. Perhaps you could answer
> it directly and honestly.
>
>
>
>
> Joe wasn't promoting many-bladed mills for running obsolete factories,
> but for (check the newsgroup name) home electric power generation in
> the present. They are *very* ill-suited for that purpose. Except for
> water pumping, the type is mostly offered by quacks fond of making
> outrageous performance claims. So considering the context, Steve's
> comment was quite correct.
>
> Joe didn't provide any currently-available examples, but since you
> seem to agree with him, you might post links to some many-bladed home
> electric power mills. Then we can compare them to fewer-bladed models
> on the basis of price, performance, efficiency, longevity, etc.
>
> Wayne
As I did not propose that these old designs should be used for electric
generation your points are, as usual, only the delusional crap we have
come to expect from you. Wipe the foam off and have a look.
Pity Steve can't talk for himself.
If you want to increase you knowledge of wind power you might start here;
http://www.windmillworld.com/
or have a look at the Newent
http://www.windmillworld.com/uk/glo...htm#Newent%3C/a
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-03, 10:21 pm |
| On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:31:29 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>wmbjk wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
George, I'm shocked I tell you, SHOCKED that you didn't answer the
question.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>As I did not propose that these old designs should be used for electric
>generation
Then WTF was the point of your post? (as if it's a mystery) Perhaps
you thought you were posting to the alt.backyardfactory.thehardway
newsgroup.
> your points are, as usual, only the delusional crap we have
>come to expect from you. Wipe the foam off and have a look.
>
>Pity Steve can't talk for himself.
I'm sure he'll find time for Usenet again before long. And I don't
think he'll mind me mocking you in the meantime.
>If you want to increase you knowledge of wind power you might start here;
>
>http://www.windmillworld.com/
>
>or have a look at the Newent
>
>http://www.windmillworld.com/uk/glo...htm#Newent%3C/a
IOW, you scoured the net looking for modern many-bladed power mills,
couldn't find any, and decided to post a bunch of irrelevant stuff
instead. You should have looked harder. They're out there, it's just
that they don't compare favorably with mainstream offerings. Kind of
like you...
Wayne
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-03, 10:21 pm |
| On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:13:54 GMT, tim <timothybil@comcast.net> wrote:
>Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
>news:6o_%e.39097$TA2.1690@fe09.lga:
[color=darkred]
>I don't know where you get your info, but in the twenties and
>thirties it was even money as to whether one of those windmills was
>pumping water or running a Wincharger generator. They were quite
>popular, at least in the Plains states where it was a long time
>before REA (Rural Electrification Authority) got lines out to all
>those homes way out there.
<sigh>
We already have a resident flake who chose to imagine a past-tense
reference in Steve's statement. It isn't there.
The type of windmills you're talking about *don't* offer (note present
tense) any worthwhile advantage for electric power generation. If you
or the flake have a time machine, or even a current source for antique
power windmills, then please post some links so that we can compare
them to readily available offerings.
>And BTW, even if they were slower, the prudent owner either cocked
>the tail a ways to slow the fan down or turned it all the way off
>if high winds were expected.
Having to take manual action in anticipation of high winds is now
considered a severe design defect. Which is just one of the reasons
that many-bladed windmills aren't practical for home power.
BTW, Edison cells also *don't* offer (note present tense) any
worthwhile advantage for home power.
Wayne
| |
| Arnold Walker 2005-10-03, 11:21 pm |
|
"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
news:4341c101_1@news.chariot.net.au...
>
>
> wmbjk wrote:
>
> As I did not propose that these old designs should be used for electric
> generation your points are, as usual, only the delusional crap we have
> come to expect from you. Wipe the foam off and have a look.
>
> Pity Steve can't talk for himself.
>
> If you want to increase you knowledge of wind power you might start here;
>
> http://www.windmillworld.com/
>
> or have a look at the Newent
>
> http://www.windmillworld.com/uk/glo...htm#Newent%3C/a
You want to buy a windmill.
Got some cheap at www.poerplantonline.com only ten times the price of
biomass or fossil
fuel plants.
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-04, 6:21 am |
|
wmbjk wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:13:54 GMT, tim <timothybil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <sigh>
>
> We already have a resident flake who chose to imagine a past-tense
> reference in Steve's statement. It isn't there.
>
> The type of windmills you're talking about *don't* offer (note present
> tense) any worthwhile advantage for electric power generation. If you
> or the flake have a time machine, or even a current source for antique
> power windmills, then please post some links so that we can compare
> them to readily available offerings.
>
>
>
>
> Having to take manual action in anticipation of high winds is now
> considered a severe design defect. Which is just one of the reasons
> that many-bladed windmills aren't practical for home power.
>
> BTW, Edison cells also *don't* offer (note present tense) any
> worthwhile advantage for home power.
>
> Wayne
Wayne
Steve Spence in his infinite ignorance said;
"And they are only good for water pumping, not electrical generation."
While I, with greater knowledge said
Why do you come here? Just to flaunt your ignorance.
Some of those old wind mills were huge and ran factories. And why do | | |