Wind
George Ghio
enough days over the year.
Guessing will not tell you what you need to know.
In theory air moving at 40 Kph through one sq. meter has an energy
content of 400 watts if it were stopped.
You can not extracte more than 59% of the power in the wind.
To determine wether your site is feasible or cost effective you need
some facts and figures. Due to the cost of site preparation and the
work that needs to go into a wind tower it is wise to be very sure to
do your homework first.
In order to determine wether your site is suitable for wind power you
may need to buy an Anemometer to collect the needed data.
Further data should be obtained from your nearest meterorological
station that measures wind speed. This can be supplied from the Weather
Bureau.
A correlation between your wind speed figures and that supplied from
the metrorological station will be needed for at least a month, more
would be better. This should be checked against the ten year average
for the same time span. If it is not close then you may end up with
particularly optimistic or pessimistic results.
Wind velocity Vs Rotor Diameter
The power from the wind increases as a function of the cube of the wind
velocity. Increasing the diameter of the rotor increases the power
output as a square function. Power from the wind can be derived by the
formula;
W = 14.3 PAV 3
Where;
P = air density (2.3 X 10-3)
A = area swept by turbine blades (sq. meters)
V = wind velocity in kph
The air density figure is for sea level. Power from a 30kph wind will
be 10% less at an elevation of 1000 meters and 25% less at 3000 meters
More to come
George
--
DON"T PANIC! If in doubt run in circles scream and shout.
Nick Pine
>In theory air moving at 40 Kph through one sq. meter has an energy
>content of 400 watts if it were stopped.
That's power, not energy, George. There is a difference.
Nick
Dlehmicke
>>content of 400 watts if it were stopped.
>
>That's power, not energy, George. There is a difference.
>
You two just wait til your father gets home.
George Ghio
dleh...@aol.com (Dlehmicke) wrote:
>>In theory air moving at 40 Kph through one sq. meter has an energy
>>>content of 400 watts if it were stopped.
>>
>>That's power, not energy, George. There is a difference.
I think you will find that it is energy. Power is is the time rate of
using energy. So energy = 400 watts. Power = 400 watt hours
>>
>
>You two just wait til your father gets home.
Yah but Nick started it and besides he is a wanker.Nayh
Kevin McKeogh
"George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote in message
news:030420001536069271%gh...@netconnect.com.au...
> I think you will find that it is energy. Power is is the time rate
of
> using energy. So energy = 400 watts. Power = 400 watt hours
> >>
> >
> >You two just wait til your father gets home.
>
> Yah but Nick started it and besides he is a wanker.Nayh
If I agree with Nick does that make me a wanker too?
He is right
Power = 400 watts = 400 joules per second
Energy = 400 watt hours = 400 joules per second x 3600 seconds per
hour = 1440000 joules
joules are definitely energy, watts are definitely power
Kevin McKeogh
(Damn, I must be a wanker now)
Nick Pine
>Power is is the time rate of using energy.
>So energy = 400 watts. Power = 400 watt hours
This is precious. I'm starting a file of "Ghio's
technical tips" to be posted periodically... :-)
Nick
Steve Spence
--
--
Steve Spence
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
ssp...@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
If we don't believe in freedom of speech
for people who we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all.
--
"Nick Pine" <ni...@pluto.ee.vill.edu> wrote in message
news:8c9v8n$i...@pluto.ee.vill.edu...
Zamboni
> If I agree with Nick does that make me a wanker too?
If you *are* a wanker, it's for some other reason than being wrong about
this, because you're right.
> Power = 400 watts = 400 joules per second
> Energy = 400 watt hours = 400 joules per second x 3600 seconds per
> hour = 1440000 joules
Textbook. It doesn't get much more straighforward than that. Sorry
George, i'm not taking sides, but you seem to have woken up on the
discombobulated side of the bed this morning.
--
Living life at a Walking Pace,
Zamboni
-~鼻敷--~鼻敷--~鼻敷--~鼻敷--~鼻敷--~鼻敷-
Live for Today; tomorrow might Suck.
The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
"I don't gotta do anything but stay white and die"
--Fairley Pollock
"Imagination is the willful suspension of disbelief."
--Samuel Taylor Coleridge,
most likely while high
George Ghio
<mouse...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>"George Ghio" <gh...@netconnect.com.au> wrote in message
>news:030420001536069271%gh...@netconnect.com.au...
>> I think you will find that it is energy. Power is is the time rate
>of
>> using energy. So energy = 400 watts. Power = 400 watt hours
>> >>
>> >
>> >You two just wait til your father gets home.
>>
>> Yah but Nick started it and besides he is a wanker.Nayh
>
>If I agree with Nick does that make me a wanker too?
>He is right
>Power = 400 watts = 400 joules per second
>Energy = 400 watt hours = 400 joules per second x 3600 seconds per
>hour = 1440000 joules
>
>joules are definitely energy, watts are definitely power
Yes you are correct. One should always doubble check quotes used.
Please read the passage as "The POWER in wind...."
And Nick is still a wanker.
George