|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > October 2005 > Tower options for Wind Generator?
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]
| Author |
Tower options for Wind Generator?
|
|
| robvann 2005-10-20, 11:21 pm |
|
I am looking for tower type suggestions for a small home windmill.
After 20+ years of sitting on the sidelines I finally bought a little
AirX 400W (1 meter diameter) windgenerator, and have test mounted it at
the top of a tree in my front yard. See photos:
http://www.perfectphoto.ca/Gallery/AltEnergy/index.htm
My deliberation now is what kind of tower to build / buy. My five acre
lot is very well tree'd, and therefore my current tree top mount with a
60 foot height is just barely high enough. I can see that the wind
generator is catching a lot of turbulance and swinging around in
various directions in strong winds. I suspect that I will need to get
to 75 feet or more.
There seem to be a few used TV / ham radio (DelHi triangular type)
towers around, but the more I read about them they are not really
designed to handle the horizontal loading that a windmill needs,
thereby requiring guy wires to bring it up to spec. I really like the
idea of a hinged at the bottom unit that I can tilt up. But, it this
really practical at 75' plus?
Alternatively, it would seem if I need to use guy wires to reach that
high, that a simple pole type structure (sched 40 pipe) would be as
good as the radio tower. If so then how the heck does one climb up the
pole to mount the wind generator head?
Q1) Are there any benefits to using a radio tower over a pole assuming
it's guyed?
Q2) If I use sched 40 pipe, are there any special techniques for
joining the 21' sections. I was thinking of using a slightly larger
pipe over the two as a sleeve, with a bolt through the middle.
Any feedback would be most welcome.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-21, 12:21 am |
| robvann wrote:
> I am looking for tower type suggestions for a small home windmill.
>
> After 20+ years of sitting on the sidelines I finally bought a little
> AirX 400W (1 meter diameter) windgenerator, and have test mounted it at
> the top of a tree in my front yard. See photos:
> http://www.perfectphoto.ca/Gallery/AltEnergy/index.htm
>
> My deliberation now is what kind of tower to build / buy. My five acre
> lot is very well tree'd, and therefore my current tree top mount with a
> 60 foot height is just barely high enough. I can see that the wind
> generator is catching a lot of turbulance and swinging around in
> various directions in strong winds. I suspect that I will need to get
> to 75 feet or more.
>
> There seem to be a few used TV / ham radio (DelHi triangular type)
> towers around, but the more I read about them they are not really
> designed to handle the horizontal loading that a windmill needs,
> thereby requiring guy wires to bring it up to spec. I really like the
> idea of a hinged at the bottom unit that I can tilt up. But, it this
> really practical at 75' plus?
>
> Alternatively, it would seem if I need to use guy wires to reach that
> high, that a simple pole type structure (sched 40 pipe) would be as
> good as the radio tower. If so then how the heck does one climb up the
> pole to mount the wind generator head?
>
> Q1) Are there any benefits to using a radio tower over a pole assuming
> it's guyed?
>
> Q2) If I use sched 40 pipe, are there any special techniques for
> joining the 21' sections. I was thinking of using a slightly larger
> pipe over the two as a sleeve, with a bolt through the middle.
>
> Any feedback would be most welcome.
>
You can see our tower at
http://www.green-trust.org/wiki/ind...Solar_PV_System
we have the air 303.
you should drop your question at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/awea-wind-home/
--
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 2005-10-21, 1:21 am |
|
robvann wrote:
> I am looking for tower type suggestions for a small home windmill.
>
> After 20+ years of sitting on the sidelines I finally bought a little
> AirX 400W (1 meter diameter) windgenerator, and have test mounted it at
> the top of a tree in my front yard. See photos:
> http://www.perfectphoto.ca/Gallery/AltEnergy/index.htm
>
> My deliberation now is what kind of tower to build / buy. My five acre
> lot is very well tree'd, and therefore my current tree top mount with a
> 60 foot height is just barely high enough. I can see that the wind
> generator is catching a lot of turbulance and swinging around in
> various directions in strong winds. I suspect that I will need to get
> to 75 feet or more.
>
> There seem to be a few used TV / ham radio (DelHi triangular type)
> towers around, but the more I read about them they are not really
> designed to handle the horizontal loading that a windmill needs,
> thereby requiring guy wires to bring it up to spec. I really like the
> idea of a hinged at the bottom unit that I can tilt up. But, it this
> really practical at 75' plus?
>
> Alternatively, it would seem if I need to use guy wires to reach that
> high, that a simple pole type structure (sched 40 pipe) would be as
> good as the radio tower. If so then how the heck does one climb up the
> pole to mount the wind generator head?
>
> Q1) Are there any benefits to using a radio tower over a pole assuming
> it's guyed?
>
> Q2) If I use sched 40 pipe, are there any special techniques for
> joining the 21' sections. I was thinking of using a slightly larger
> pipe over the two as a sleeve, with a bolt through the middle.
>
> Any feedback would be most welcome.
>
Judging from your photos you will need a tower on the order of 160 Feet.
Can send you a drawing of why the tower need to be this height. One way
to test what I have said is to fly a kite at your tower site with light
streamers (10 feet long) tied to the string at ~ 20 foot intervals where
the streamers start to straighten out nicely is the minimum height of
your tower.
| |
| Vaughn 2005-10-21, 8:21 am |
|
"robvann" <robvannostrand@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129860804.146754.258310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There seem to be a few used TV / ham radio (DelHi triangular type)
> towers around, but the more I read about them they are not really
> designed to handle the horizontal loading that a windmill needs,
> thereby requiring guy wires to bring it up to spec. I really like the
> idea of a hinged at the bottom unit that I can tilt up. But, it this
> really practical at 75' plus?
You could always look around for a used crank-up pole or tower, but they
get heavy and expensive in this size range. Guy wires are probably a given at
this height. Try looking and/or posting on ham radio boards such as:
http://swap.qth.com/c_tower.php
>
> Alternatively, it would seem if I need to use guy wires to reach that
> high, that a simple pole type structure (sched 40 pipe) would be as
> good as the radio tower. If so then how the heck does one climb up the
> pole to mount the wind generator head?
Exactly! I have no experience with wind generators, but have been putting
antennas up in the air for decades. You have just hit on exactly the problem.
If you find an old Radio Amateurs Handbook (there are millions of copies out
there) you will find an interesting pivot "A" frame pivot design in the back
pages.
Whatever you do, I am afraid that you are going to need a very serious
structure to get high enough at the site you describe.
Vaughn
Vaughn
| |
| Ron Rosenfeld 2005-10-21, 8:21 am |
| On 20 Oct 2005 19:13:24 -0700, "robvann" <robvannostrand@gmail.com> wrote:
>I suspect that I will need to get
>to 75 feet or more.
To answer a question you did not ask, the minimum height you should be
considering is one that gets the blades at least thirty feet above the
closest thing within about 300'. And this IS for turbulence. I've heard
of sturdier windmills self-destructing from being mounted too low.
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
| |
|
| It seemes to me if a person was to go to the expense and trouble of a
160 foot tower you might want to get a real wind generator instead of a
toy.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-10-21, 9:21 am |
| robvann wrote:
> My deliberation now is what kind of tower to build / buy. My five acre
> lot is very well tree'd, and therefore my current tree top mount with a
> 60 foot height is just barely high enough.
By definition, it isn't even that. It should be 30' over any surrounding
obstruction.
> I can see that the wind
> generator is catching a lot of turbulance and swinging around in
> various directions in strong winds. I suspect that I will need to get
> to 75 feet or more.
90'
> Alternatively, it would seem if I need to use guy wires to reach that
> high, that a simple pole type structure (sched 40 pipe) would be as
> good as the radio tower. If so then how the heck does one climb up the
> pole to mount the wind generator head?
I can't see a way to do it other than a tilt tower. Sure, you can rent a
crane, but it's hardly cost-effective for an Air-X.
>
> Q1) Are there any benefits to using a radio tower over a pole assuming
> it's guyed?
Not that I can imagine.
--
derek
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-21, 12:21 pm |
| On 20 Oct 2005 19:13:24 -0700, "robvann" <robvannostrand@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>I am looking for tower type suggestions for a small home windmill.
>
>After 20+ years of sitting on the sidelines I finally bought a little
>AirX 400W (1 meter diameter) windgenerator, and have test mounted it at
>the top of a tree in my front yard. See photos:
>http://www.perfectphoto.ca/Gallery/AltEnergy/index.htm
>
>My deliberation now is what kind of tower to build / buy. My five acre
>lot is very well tree'd, and therefore my current tree top mount with a
>60 foot height is just barely high enough. I can see that the wind
>generator is catching a lot of turbulance and swinging around in
>various directions in strong winds. I suspect that I will need to get
>to 75 feet or more.
>
>There seem to be a few used TV / ham radio (DelHi triangular type)
>towers around, but the more I read about them they are not really
>designed to handle the horizontal loading that a windmill needs,
>thereby requiring guy wires to bring it up to spec. I really like the
>idea of a hinged at the bottom unit that I can tilt up. But, it this
>really practical at 75' plus?
>
>Alternatively, it would seem if I need to use guy wires to reach that
>high, that a simple pole type structure (sched 40 pipe) would be as
>good as the radio tower. If so then how the heck does one climb up the
>pole to mount the wind generator head?
>
>Q1) Are there any benefits to using a radio tower over a pole assuming
>it's guyed?
>
>Q2) If I use sched 40 pipe, are there any special techniques for
>joining the 21' sections. I was thinking of using a slightly larger
>pipe over the two as a sleeve, with a bolt through the middle.
>
>Any feedback would be most welcome.
As others have written, the usual recommendation is 30' above the
nearest obstacle within 300'. So it sounds like 80' is going to be the
minimum. If you've had the Air unit long enough to be satisfied that
wind power is worth investing in, then you might make the new tower
beefy enough to handle a larger turbine. This manual
http://www.windenergy.com/AIR_Land_...5_Manual_II.pdf should give
you a good idea of the basic configuration, but everything would need
to be scaled up for additional height, and for additional weight if
you ever plan to get a larger turbine.
To provide for an eventual rotor diameter of say, 10', you'd likely
use 4" pipe. A ready-made kit of components (other than the pipe) from
an outfit like Lake Michigan Wind and Sun would cost over $2k. Even
without the kit, if I were welding up all the components for a similar
setup I'd still expect to spend $1k for pipe, wire, cable hardware
etc.
As for the radio antenna tower option, I wouldn't recommend that if
the idea is to be able to climb the tower. It would be better to adapt
it for hinging instead. The side load shouldn't be an issue with the
Air, but it might be with a larger turbine. It appears that your
property is sloped, which may offer some advantages with a hinged
tower.
This site has links to some AWEA Home Wind posts that you may find
useful.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klem...tion_Issues.htm
Wayne
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-21, 1:21 pm |
| Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>robvann wrote:
>
How about some sort of balloon?
Nick
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-21, 8:21 pm |
|
wmbjk wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2005 19:13:24 -0700, "robvann" <robvannostrand@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> As others have written, the usual recommendation is 30' above the
> nearest obstacle within 300'. So it sounds like 80' is going to be the
> minimum. If you've had the Air unit long enough to be satisfied that
> wind power is worth investing in, then you might make the new tower
> beefy enough to handle a larger turbine. This manual
> http://www.windenergy.com/AIR_Land_...5_Manual_II.pdf should give
> you a good idea of the basic configuration, but everything would need
> to be scaled up for additional height, and for additional weight if
> you ever plan to get a larger turbine.
>
> To provide for an eventual rotor diameter of say, 10', you'd likely
> use 4" pipe. A ready-made kit of components (other than the pipe) from
> an outfit like Lake Michigan Wind and Sun would cost over $2k. Even
> without the kit, if I were welding up all the components for a similar
> setup I'd still expect to spend $1k for pipe, wire, cable hardware
> etc.
>
> As for the radio antenna tower option, I wouldn't recommend that if
> the idea is to be able to climb the tower. It would be better to adapt
> it for hinging instead. The side load shouldn't be an issue with the
> Air, but it might be with a larger turbine. It appears that your
> property is sloped, which may offer some advantages with a hinged
> tower.
>
> This site has links to some AWEA Home Wind posts that you may find
> useful.
> http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klem...tion_Issues.htm
>
> Wayne
As the obstacle is the forest and the trees are ~60 feet tall to suggest
that 80 feet (based on the ROT of 30' above the nearest obstacle within
300') should do is a load of rubbish. I also live on a treed block and
testing with a kite and streamers suggested that I would need to be
around 100 feet above the tree tops for clean wind.
Want to know the correct tower hight? Do the test.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-21, 10:21 pm |
| Is this a polite way of telling all of us to
"go fly a kite"?
"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
news:43597004_2@news.chariot.net.au...
>
> As the obstacle is the forest and the trees are ~60 feet tall to suggest
> that 80 feet (based on the ROT of 30' above the nearest obstacle within
> 300') should do is a load of rubbish. I also live on a treed block and
> testing with a kite and streamers suggested that I would need to be
> around 100 feet above the tree tops for clean wind.
>
> Want to know the correct tower hight? Do the test.
>
>
>
>
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-21, 10:21 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>As the obstacle is the forest and the trees are ~60 feet tall
No George, he said that the *turbine* is at 60 feet. Do you imagine
that the turbine is currently *in* the trees?
>to suggest
>that 80 feet (based on the ROT of 30' above the nearest obstacle within
>300') should do is a load of rubbish. I also live on a treed block and
>testing with a kite and streamers suggested that I would need to be
>around 100 feet above the tree tops for clean wind.
Well, that's an unusual recommendation, and we can't see your kite
from here. Perhaps you could post a link to ah, anyone other than you,
who recommends putting turbines 100' above obstacles. My own turbines
are ~55' above nearer (small) obstacles, and ~60' above the roof peak
(150' feet away). As can be seen in this video, the wind at that
height is clean even at the speed limits of both turbines.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen/Audio_Video.htm (Whisper and
Air, near bottom of page) So we know that at least at some locations,
nothing close to 100' obstacle clearance is required. You might also
consider that if 100' of obstacle clearance *was* generally required,
then every turbine lower than 100' is installed incorrectly. Which
would be ah, most all of them. How likely do you imagine it is that
most every turbine is installed incorrectly?
>Want to know the correct tower hight? Do the test.
What *exactly* is the test supposed to demonstrate? If it's a
recommended procedure, then you need only point us to a web site that
describes it in detail.
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-21, 10:21 pm |
| No, it is just a good way to to find the minimum height for clean wind.
Costs next to nothing to do, and works.
Solar Flare wrote:
> Is this a polite way of telling all of us to
>
> "go fly a kite"?
>
> "George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
> news:43597004_2@news.chariot.net.au...
>
>
>
>
| |
| robvann 2005-10-21, 11:21 pm |
| Many thanks for all the feedback!
I am still digesting it all...
Just to clarify the current tree is about 50' which is one of the
higher ones in our clearing, and therefore the head is about 10' above
the tree top. I know it should be higher but this was just for
testing.
With some Wilma side effects expected to come our way (Nova Scotia,
Canada), I will probably pull it down for a few days.
I do also have a 10 foot blade that I carved out of wood when I was a
teenager. I may eventually mount it, or buy a bigger mill. So I do
want the tower to be able to accomodate a mill bigger than the AirX,
and move the AirX to the cottage.
- Rob
robvann wrote:
> Q2) If I use sched 40 pipe, are there any special techniques for
> joining the 21' sections. I was thinking of using a slightly larger
> pipe over the two as a sleeve, with a bolt through the middle.
>
> Any feedback would be most welcome.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-22, 1:21 am |
| ZINGGGGGGGG !
"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
news:43598f96_2@news.chariot.net.au...[color=darkred]
> No, it is just a good way to to find the minimum height for clean wind.
> Costs next to nothing to do, and works.
>
>
>
> Solar Flare wrote:
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-10-22, 3:21 am |
| robvann wrote:
....
> I do also have a 10 foot blade that I carved out of wood when I was a
> teenager. I may eventually mount it, or buy a bigger mill. So I do
> want the tower to be able to accomodate a mill bigger than the AirX,
> and move the AirX to the cottage.
You might try looking at one of those home made wind turbines.
I think there are a couple of home builders and/or co-ops that
are cranking them out if you don't want to do it (or have it done)
locally.
http://www.scoraigwind.com/index.htm
Anthony
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-22, 5:21 am |
|
wmbjk wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No George, he said that the *turbine* is at 60 feet. Do you imagine
> that the turbine is currently *in* the trees?
>
>
>
>
> Well, that's an unusual recommendation, and we can't see your kite
> from here. Perhaps you could post a link to ah, anyone other than you,
> who recommends putting turbines 100' above obstacles. My own turbines
> are ~55' above nearer (small) obstacles, and ~60' above the roof peak
> (150' feet away). As can be seen in this video, the wind at that
> height is clean even at the speed limits of both turbines.
> http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen/Audio_Video.htm (Whisper and
> Air, near bottom of page) So we know that at least at some locations,
> nothing close to 100' obstacle clearance is required. You might also
> consider that if 100' of obstacle clearance *was* generally required,
> then every turbine lower than 100' is installed incorrectly. Which
> would be ah, most all of them. How likely do you imagine it is that
> most every turbine is installed incorrectly?
>
>
>
>
> What *exactly* is the test supposed to demonstrate? If it's a
> recommended procedure, then you need only point us to a web site that
> describes it in detail.
>
> Wayne
God you're a dill. But then that explains why your tower is to short.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-10-22, 5:21 am |
| robvann <robvannostrand@gmail.com> wrote:
>Many thanks for all the feedback!
You are welcome.
>Just to clarify the current tree is about 50' which is one of the
>higher ones in our clearing, and therefore the head is about 10' above
>the tree top. I know it should be higher...
An Air X weighs 13 pounds, and air weighs 0.075 lb/ft^3, so you might lift
it with about 13/0.075 = 173 ft^3 of H2 from an electrolyzer on the ground
with a 1/4" tube running up to a 20'x3.3' diameter hot dog, eg a 12'x20'
piece of 4-year greenhouse poly film with some 1x3s or PVC pipes to seal
the edges. The electrolyzer might be 2 carbon rods from old flashlight
batteries sitting in water with some battery acid.
Or buy 40' ($22) of 30" diameter poly film duct from a greenhouse supplier
and make 2 hot dogs and fly the Air X from a PVC pipe suspended between them.
Or make a wind-sock-shaped dirigible that speeds up the air that hits
the Air X at the small end.
Or turn the rest of the trees into firewood.
Nick
| |
|
|
| wmbjk 2005-10-22, 11:21 am |
| On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:37:47 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>wmbjk wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> God you're a dill. But then that explains why your tower is to short.
IOW, you couldn't find a single URL to back up your 100' obstacle
clearance or kite-test recommendations. Do you suppose that there
could be a correlation between your lack of wind power experience, and
your telling prospective customers the kite-test story and advising
them they needed a bizarre amount of obstacle clearance? Nah....
Wayne
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-22, 11:21 am |
| On 21 Oct 2005 19:16:18 -0700, "robvann" <robvannostrand@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Many thanks for all the feedback!
>I am still digesting it all...
>
>Just to clarify the current tree is about 50' which is one of the
>higher ones in our clearing, and therefore the head is about 10' above
>the tree top. I know it should be higher but this was just for
>testing.
>With some Wilma side effects expected to come our way (Nova Scotia,
>Canada), I will probably pull it down for a few days.
>
>I do also have a 10 foot blade that I carved out of wood when I was a
>teenager. I may eventually mount it, or buy a bigger mill. So I do
>want the tower to be able to accomodate a mill bigger than the AirX,
>and move the AirX to the cottage.
>
>- Rob
Here's a link to some interesting tilting towers.
http://www.northeastwindenergy.com/
A little overkill for an AirX :-), but the principles might be
useful.
Wayne
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-10-22, 12:21 pm |
| robvann wrote:
> Many thanks for all the feedback!
> I am still digesting it all...
>
> Just to clarify the current tree is about 50' which is one of the
> higher ones in our clearing, and therefore the head is about 10' above
> the tree top. I know it should be higher but this was just for
> testing.
> With some Wilma side effects expected to come our way
Wilma? Not a chance...
> (Nova Scotia,
> Canada), I will probably pull it down for a few days.
Whereabouts are you? I'm on Musquodoboit Harbour
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-10-22, 12:21 pm |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> Or turn the rest of the trees into firewood.
It would be funny if I didn't have a neighbour who was planning to mount a
wind generator when Hurricane Juan blew through and flattened his whole 40
acres of trees. It removed all obstructions to his wind & PV generation,
and left him with firewood for the rest of his life, but the property looks
awful :-(
--
derek
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-23, 1:21 am |
| Try this.
www.rpc.com.au/
Click on wind turbines
Click on more info - "Energy from Nature" top right.
Scroll down to "Table of Contents"
Click on "Wind Generators in the contents"
Scroll down to bottom of page
Then apologise.
wmbjk wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:37:47 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IOW, you couldn't find a single URL to back up your 100' obstacle
> clearance or kite-test recommendations. Do you suppose that there
> could be a correlation between your lack of wind power experience, and
> your telling prospective customers the kite-test story and advising
> them they needed a bizarre amount of obstacle clearance? Nah....
>
> Wayne
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-23, 12:21 pm |
| On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:46:35 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>Try this.
>
>www.rpc.com.au/
>
>Click on wind turbines
>
>Click on more info - "Energy from Nature" top right.
>
>Scroll down to "Table of Contents"
>
>Click on "Wind Generators in the contents"
>
>Scroll down to bottom of page
>
>Then apologise.
If that web page is the basis of your "all turbines must be 100' above
obstacle" advice, then that's pretty sad. The text clearly reads:
*** 2. If it is not possible to avoid obstructions as above, tower
height should be increased to a value of approximately 9 metres
greater than the height of obstructions within 100 metres.***
Which is pretty much the same advice offered by every contributor to
this thread except for you. You might also take a closer look at the
diagrams. The bottom right diagram shows that disturbed air may be
expected up to about 1.3 times the height of trees. So in the case at
hand, the OP might expect to need a minimum of 65' turbine height, not
the 160' you assert. The bottom left diagram shows disturbed air may
be expected at 2 times the height of a building, not the 100' of
clearance you've asserted that I must have. Here the tallest obstacle
is 16', and its peak is about 2' above the *base* elevation of my
tower. Clearance is over 60', or about double the height that
disturbed air could be expected according to your reference.
I believe you have: 1. severely misinterpreted test results at your
location, 2. fundamentally erred in trying to apply any particular
single-site result (invalid or otherwise) to all other sites. As a
pilot, I can tell you that disturbed air can be found at *any*
altitude. As someone who has successfully utilized wind power for 10
years and has seen many other installations, I can tell you that a
blanket recommendation of 100' of obstacle clearance is absurd, and
proven wrong by most every productive home turbine installation.
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-23, 1:21 pm |
| After nearly twenty years in renewable energy I can state with out fear
that if after 10 years you still cannot explain two days autonomy with a
reduced load then you are not capable of commenting on anything.
Be that as it may. My evaluation of my site is pretty well correct given
the mix of terrain of hills, trees and cropping not to mention a small
mountain.
Also my evaluation of your system is correct. I have seen where your
wind gens are located, seen the terrain, correctly identified the fact
that you copied your system and then doubled it to make it work and
correctly identified your days of autonomy.
And then you have the gall to infer that I made up the "kite test" as
well as claim that I said "all turbines must be 100' above
obstacle" when I in fact I only made a superficial comparison between
the posters site and my site based on a couple of photos.
All the diagrams assume a flat terrain with an obstruction. Real life is
seldom so simple. But then perhaps I should not make such a blanket
statement as it is clear that you are indeed that simple.
Any site that is beyond flat ground with a single obstruction needs to
be tested. I outlined a simple test that is known to be effective.
The OP would be well advised to follow my advice and go fly a kite.
Just to refresh your memory this is the advice I gave him:
Judging from your photos you will need a tower on the order of 160 Feet.
Can send you a drawing of why the tower need to be this height. One way
to test what I have said is to fly a kite at your tower site with light
streamers (10 feet long) tied to the string at ~ 20 foot intervals where
the streamers start to straighten out nicely is the minimum height of
your tower.
In short Wayne you are out of your depth. Again.
wmbjk wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:46:35 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> If that web page is the basis of your "all turbines must be 100' above
> obstacle" advice, then that's pretty sad. The text clearly reads:
> *** 2. If it is not possible to avoid obstructions as above, tower
> height should be increased to a value of approximately 9 metres
> greater than the height of obstructions within 100 metres.***
> Which is pretty much the same advice offered by every contributor to
> this thread except for you. You might also take a closer look at the
> diagrams. The bottom right diagram shows that disturbed air may be
> expected up to about 1.3 times the height of trees. So in the case at
> hand, the OP might expect to need a minimum of 65' turbine height, not
> the 160' you assert. The bottom left diagram shows disturbed air may
> be expected at 2 times the height of a building, not the 100' of
> clearance you've asserted that I must have. Here the tallest obstacle
> is 16', and its peak is about 2' above the *base* elevation of my
> tower. Clearance is over 60', or about double the height that
> disturbed air could be expected according to your reference.
>
> I believe you have: 1. severely misinterpreted test results at your
> location, 2. fundamentally erred in trying to apply any particular
> single-site result (invalid or otherwise) to all other sites. As a
> pilot, I can tell you that disturbed air can be found at *any*
> altitude. As someone who has successfully utilized wind power for 10
> years and has seen many other installations, I can tell you that a
> blanket recommendation of 100' of obstacle clearance is absurd, and
> proven wrong by most every productive home turbine installation.
>
> Wayne
| |
|
| On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:29:14 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>Be that as it may. My evaluation of my site is pretty well correct given
>the mix of terrain of hills, trees and cropping not to mention a small
>mountain.
I'm afraid your word isn't worth much around here anymore. Based on
your previous posts, I can think of two reasons you'd deliberately
overestimate the required height: to provide an excuse for not having
a turbine of your own, and to be able to claim bad "design" of the
towers of anyone you want to attack.
>Also my evaluation of your system is correct. I have seen where your
>wind gens are located, seen the terrain,
Oh yeah, your creepy "accidental flyover while just happening to be in
the area on the other side of the planet". The one where you
eventually admitted that the place you claimed to have seen "might not
have been the right place, but it sure looked like it could be from
the photos" or some such disturbed weaseling. In other words, you've
seen a few photos, and as usual, make outrageous claims that only make
sense in terms of your attempts to invent fault. But it's all just
more of your denying the undeniable given that anyone can see
proof-of-the-pudding video of my turbines flying cleanly at wind
speeds beyond their maximum output.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen/Audio_Video.htm
> correctly identified the fact
>that you copied your system and then doubled it to make it work and
>correctly identified your days of autonomy.
You've simply done what you always do - tell bald-faced lies in order
to divert attention from your blunders - the latest one posting a
reference that supports every other contributor's opinion and
contradicts your own.
>And then you have the gall to infer that I made up the "kite test" as
>well as claim that I said "all turbines must be 100' above
>obstacle" when I in fact I only made a superficial comparison between
>the posters site and my site based on a couple of photos.
If only.... In fact, your primary purpose in posting these days is to
invent fault with those who've corrected your previous mistakes. The
few times you even try to be constructive always seem to begin with
something negative.
>All the diagrams assume a flat terrain with an obstruction. Real life is
>seldom so simple.
If it's not so simple, then how were you able to claim he'd need 160'
by looking at photos?
>statement as it is clear that you are indeed that simple.
>
>Any site that is beyond flat ground with a single obstruction needs to
>be tested.
Nonsense.
> I outlined a simple test that is known to be effective.
Your testing advice would have been fine if you'd stopped at that. It
was your assumption of the results that got you into trouble. Check
your quotes below, your conclusion came *before* you even suggested
testing. And you flat-out told him that 80' minimum "is a load of
rubbish", without any testing, and even though your own reference
agrees with that recommendation.
>The OP would be well advised to follow my advice and go fly a kite.
The OP's strategy of flying a turbine in a temporary tower was a good
one. If he wants to fly a kite as well, I don't see any harm. But the
tower height is going to be limited to what's practical, and for most
home wind power applications, that's unlikely to be over 4 sticks of
pipe, or 84'. Even at that, hoisting is not to be taken lightly.
>Just to refresh your memory this is the advice I gave him:
>
>
>Judging from your photos you will need a tower on the order of 160 Feet.
There is no way, no how, that *anyone* could responsibly make such an
unusual recommendation based on the information at hand. It's
especially absurd coming from the guy who bungled the tree height.
>Can send you a drawing of why the tower need to be this height. One way
>to test what I have said is to fly a kite at your tower site with light
>streamers (10 feet long) tied to the string at ~ 20 foot intervals where
>the streamers start to straighten out nicely is the minimum height of
>your tower.
It's weird to be trying to do with email what was much easier to do by
posting a link. You always seem to be inviting people to contact you.
If you're lonely, instead of mining Usenet for pen pals, why not start
your own Yahoo group instead? We could have a contest to pick the
group name....
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2005-10-24, 1:21 am |
| Wayne
You are a simple minded booby. You have not and can not support your
claims about your system. You did not design it.
A movie of a wind turbine spinning around is no proof of either clean
air or energy production.
Your blind acceptance of a drawing which shows a single obstruction on a
flat plain as a model for real life situations is beyond belief.
In short, you just don't know enough to give advice.
wmbjk wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:29:14 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'm afraid your word isn't worth much around here anymore. Based on
> your previous posts, I can think of two reasons you'd deliberately
> overestimate the required height: to provide an excuse for not having
> a turbine of your own, and to be able to claim bad "design" of the
> towers of anyone you want to attack.
>
>
>
>
> Oh yeah, your creepy "accidental flyover while just happening to be in
> the area on the other side of the planet". The one where you
> eventually admitted that the place you claimed to have seen "might not
> have been the right place, but it sure looked like it could be from
> the photos" or some such disturbed weaseling. In other words, you've
> seen a few photos, and as usual, make outrageous claims that only make
> sense in terms of your attempts to invent fault. But it's all just
> more of your denying the undeniable given that anyone can see
> proof-of-the-pudding video of my turbines flying cleanly at wind
> speeds beyond their maximum output.
> http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen/Audio_Video.htm
>
>
>
>
> You've simply done what you always do - tell bald-faced lies in order
> to divert attention from your blunders - the latest one posting a
> reference that supports every other contributor's opinion and
> contradicts your own.
>
>
>
>
> If only.... In fact, your primary purpose in posting these days is to
> invent fault with those who've corrected your previous mistakes. The
> few times you even try to be constructive always seem to begin with
> something negative.
>
>
>
>
> If it's not so simple, then how were you able to claim he'd need 160'
> by looking at photos?
>
>
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
>
>
>
> Your testing advice would have been fine if you'd stopped at that. It
> was your assumption of the results that got you into trouble. Check
> your quotes below, your conclusion came *before* you even suggested
> testing. And you flat-out told him that 80' minimum "is a load of
> rubbish", without any testing, and even though your own reference
> agrees with that recommendation.
>
>
>
>
> The OP's strategy of flying a turbine in a temporary tower was a good
> one. If he wants to fly a kite as well, I don't see any harm. But the
> tower height is going to be limited to what's practical, and for most
> home wind power applications, that's unlikely to be over 4 sticks of
> pipe, or 84'. Even at that, hoisting is not to be taken lightly.
>
>
>
>
> There is no way, no how, that *anyone* could responsibly make such an
> unusual recommendation based on the information at hand. It's
> especially absurd coming from the guy who bungled the tree height.
>
>
>
>
> It's weird to be trying to do with email what was much easier to do by
> posting a link. You always seem to be inviting people to contact you.
> If you're lonely, instead of mining Usenet for pen pals, why not start
> your own Yahoo group instead? We could have a contest to pick the
> group name....
>
> Wayne
| |
| robvann 2005-10-24, 10:21 am |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> robvann wrote:
>
>
> Wilma? Not a chance...
>
>
> Whereabouts are you? I'm on Musquodoboit Harbour
> --
> derek
Shubenacadie,
But I hear we are expecting 100KM winds, and since this is a temporary
tree mount, then I am cautious.
- Rob
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-10-24, 12:21 pm |
| robvann wrote:
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
....[color=darkred]
> But I hear we are expecting 100KM winds, and since this is a temporary
> tree mount, then I am cautious.
You should be, but I'm still really sceptical
--
derek
| |
|
| On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:50:43 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>A movie of a wind turbine spinning around is no proof of either clean
>air or energy production.
Owing to file compression, the clips don't show much "spinning around"
at all. What a knowledgeable person can glean from them is that the
Whisper is fully furled, indicating a wind speed of about 30mph, and
that the turbine orientation is stable. By playing both video clips
one can discern the difference in noise with the Air turbine switched
on and off, and that very high wind speeds are indicated by its
sustained full "blaat mode". At the very least one may conclude that
wind from a particular direction is being successfully harvested.
George, have you ever read a newspaper article about a subject you're
familiar with, and instantly realized that the writer didn't know what
he was talking about? Now imagine my position, oft times getting *all*
of our energy from the wind, and reaping the benefits of 24hr charging
potential year after year. So I already *know* how well it works.
Which means I also *know* that when someone makes absurd claims about
my fairly typical installation, then that person can't be very
knowledgeable. Your comments have also convinced me that you've failed
to learn much despite years of reading others' experiences here, and
that it's highly unlikely that you have any wind power experience at
all. For instance, if you'd ever so much as thought about building a
tower, then you'd have realized the impracticalities of suggesting a
160' version, which would perhaps require: a clear area of 400' X
180', 3000' of guy wire, and a 90' gin pole, which itself would be
larger than most home towers. The turnbuckles alone might cost more
than an AirX.
>Your blind acceptance of a drawing which shows a single obstruction on a
>flat plain as a model for real life situations is beyond belief.
I don't see any "blind acceptance" in this thread from anyone, only
blind denial and willful ignorance from yourself. If only you had the
good sense to recognize your limitations. Then perhaps after reading
the other posts and realizing that you were the odd-man-out yet again,
you could have responded with something sensible like this - "On
second thought, as far as I know the only thing the OP's site has in
common with mine is trees, so he probably won't need anywhere near as
tall a tower as I suggested."
Wayne
| |
| robvann 2005-10-25, 9:21 pm |
| Hey Steve,
Nice work you have been doing. I really like the idea of your wooden
"lookout" tower! I never thought of incorporating my windmill needs
into such an idea. I do seem to have a hankering for high places...
On a side note I keep reading that we could just add Vegie oil to our
VW Diesel Jetta, but I can't get up the nerve to try THAT (too
expensive to repair if I screw up). It looks like you have had good
sucess with your vegie generator.
- Rob
| |
| robvann 2005-10-25, 9:21 pm |
| I thought I might try the kite test, but found that fall is not the
season to be trying to buy a kite...
I may have to dust off my boy scouts skills and build one from scratch!
| |
| robvann 2005-10-25, 9:21 pm |
| Thanks for the link. I like the "free" offers there, but unfortunately
they are a LONG way away... <SMILE>
I am starting to think more along the lines of a combo. With a tower
base and an extended pole top, that I can lower for maintenance as
required. I sort of do that now with my tree mount using a hand winch
to raise / lower the SCH40 pipe by about 10 feet.
| |
| robvann 2005-10-25, 10:21 pm |
| Thanks for the link. There is a wealth of info there.
I really liked the turbulence flow photo. If only there was a way to
see that for my current test site!
- Rob
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-25, 11:21 pm |
| robvann wrote:
> Hey Steve,
> Nice work you have been doing. I really like the idea of your wooden
> "lookout" tower! I never thought of incorporating my windmill needs
> into such an idea. I do seem to have a hankering for high places...
> On a side note I keep reading that we could just add Vegie oil to our
> VW Diesel Jetta, but I can't get up the nerve to try THAT (too
> expensive to repair if I screw up). It looks like you have had good
> sucess with your vegie generator.
> - Rob
>
The tower isn't tall enough, there isn't enough wind, there's too much
lightning, mumble mumble mumble .....
No, don't "just add Vegie oil".
Add a second, heated, tank, and startup/shutdown on (bio)diesel. None of
that "Diesel Secret" crap either.
http://www.green-trust.org/wiki/ind...itle=VeggieBenz
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| robvann 2005-10-25, 11:21 pm |
| The towers link seems to be broken, but I am on dialup so the problem
may be at my end. I will try it again tomorrow when I am on high speed
internet.
The FIVE prop mill looks interesting. I was of the impression that
the extra blades don't add a lot of value? But I am now realizing that
one of the keys to wind power in our area would seem to be to be able
to produce power in low wind, where I would think that more blades may
have more value...
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-10-25, 11:21 pm |
| robvann wrote:
> The towers link seems to be broken, but I am on dialup so the problem
> may be at my end. I will try it again tomorrow when I am on high speed
> internet.
> The FIVE prop mill looks interesting. I was of the impression that
> the extra blades don't add a lot of value? But I am now realizing that
> one of the keys to wind power in our area would seem to be to be able
> to produce power in low wind, where I would think that more blades may
> have more value...
>
more blades, less speed, better for mechanical processing than electrical.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-10-26, 12:21 am |
| robvann wrote:
> Thanks for the link. There is a wealth of info there.
> I really liked the turbulence flow photo. If only there was a way to
> see that for my current test site!
Smoldering torches on really long sticks?
Anthony
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-10-26, 12:21 am |
| robvann wrote:
....
> The FIVE prop mill looks interesting. I was of the impression that
> the extra blades don't add a lot of value? But I am now realizing that
> one of the keys to wind power in our area would seem to be to be able
> to produce power in low wind, where I would think that more blades may
> have more value...
....
You might be thinking of a larger swept area (longer/larger blades).
If you're looking to make electricity, larger blades probably would
work better than more of them.
Anthony
| |
| robvann 2005-10-26, 9:21 pm |
| The link IS working for me today.
WOW those are amazing towers. I guess I will have to enroll a welding
class so I can build one of those puppys! <SMILE>
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-26, 10:21 pm |
| On 26 Oct 2005 16:41:34 -0700, "robvann" <robvannostrand@gmail.com>
wrote:
>The link IS working for me today.
>WOW those are amazing towers. I guess I will have to enroll a welding
>class so I can build one of those puppys! <SMILE>
<http://www.northeastwindenergy.com/towers.html >
<http://www.northeastwindenergy.com/>
If you use the right pipe size it could double as a pumpkin gun. :-)
Wayne
| |
| Ecnerwal 2005-10-26, 10:21 pm |
| > <http://www.northeastwindenergy.com/>
The website is a bit strange, in that there's essentially nothing there
but pictures and an email address...where the guy is located, what this
all costs, whether it's just his system or he's building them for sale,
just no info about any of that on the site.
Sure looks like one of these could actually loft something up above my
~85 foot tree canopy, while making it possible to work on; Guyed towers
are a bit problematic in the forest, while this could be done. Probably
does not make economic sense still, given poor wind zone (Class 1), and
it would also need blessing by the town (rural, low-oversight, but if
it's over 35 feet tall and not a silo or barn, we need to talk about it
before you build it). I don't think anyone's going to buy that it's a
silo...
Of course, sticking way up from the trees like that, it would make a
spiffy lightning rod. Good if it works as LRs are supposed to (drain off
charge and avoid lighting strikes), bad if it got nailed and took out
itself and however much of the rest of the power system...I gather from
comments Steve and others have made that the latter mode is a bit too
common...
--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
| |
| wmbjk 2005-10-27, 12:21 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:13:33 GMT, Ecnerwal
<LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote:
>
>The website is a bit strange, in that there's essentially nothing there
>but pictures and an email address...where the guy is located, what this
>all costs, whether it's just his system or he's building them for sale,
>just no info about any of that on the site.
It's not a commercial site, the towers and turbines are for his own
use. I contacted him several years ago to get his opinion on some
ideas for my own tower. Because of the size of his projects, I figured
he had a crew and some heavy equipment. Instead it turned out that
he's one of those guys who just manages to get things done. Check out
the lattice tower - an observation deck and an *elevator*!
>Sure looks like one of these could actually loft something up above my
>~85 foot tree canopy, while making it possible to work on; Guyed towers
>are a bit problematic in the forest, while this could be done.
It would still be an ambitious project, but you could do a variation
on my setup - a free-standing tower with a separate hoisting mast and
counterweight. Simpler hinging and mechanics. It could be lattice part
way and monopole the rest. Still a relatively small clear-area.
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/image...ayout%20700.jpg
Wayne
|
|
|
|
|