"Kennedy tries to halt windmills"
yared...@yahoo.com
A fight to block alternative fuel development that could replace
oil-burning power plants for communities along the Nantucket Sound has
created an unusual alliance on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy backing the fight against the green proposal.
at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060302-124537-9804r.htm
dbo...@mindspring.com
enough to be liberal.
H2-PV NOW
Another Republican Organized Crime Sewer Rat emerges from the Toilet...
dbo...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Liberal hypocrisy at its finest. Most of us simply are not wealthy
> enough to be liberal.
Sailors should object to the wind turbulence from these BAD DESIGNS,
but you wouldn't know what sailors care about.
It is NOT a green proposal. Green proposals do not include eyesores and
wildlife hazards.
Get your definitions straight.
If you want GREEN wind power you have to use these:
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
Named Eagle's Roost Wind Towers, wildlife safe.
Not These:
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
Here's the EYESORE that the Republican Sewer Rats want to put
everywhere:
http://ecosyn.us/wind/visual_impacts/wind_turbines_01.jpg
Here's the alternative Scenic Eagle's Roost Wind Turbines:
http://ecosyn.us/wind/scenery/scenery.html
H2-PV NOW
It is NOT a green proposal. Green proposals do not include eyesores and
dbo...@mindspring.com
H2-PV NOW
Toilet has emerged, dbo...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Hey, put those off Nantucket. I bet Kennedy would still object.
I don't see why he should. They are experimenting with offshore
deepwater fish farms that are giant net enclosures around buoys which
are robotic feed dispensors. The Eagle's Roost design built as a
ballasted semi-submerable floatation tower would serve wonderfully as
the centerpiece of one of those farms and provide plenty of visual
forewarning before boats got tangled in the netting.
They could be painted skyblue or NATO gray and blend right in. with the
skyline.
If the power was used to operate some Fuel Cell electrolyzers, for
Hydrogen Economy, there would be plenty of surplus oxygen for aerating
the water. Fish weight gain and feed efficiency is improved by
increasing the O2 contents, which is exactly why they are planning on
moving fish farming to offshore with better aeration than near-shore.
Tugs would come pick up the filled tanks and deliver the empties.
Composite Hydrogen tanks are so light that they float even when fully
filled.
Too bad you only studied Creation Science at that redneck Florida
University, instead of learning any real science. You might have been
able to think of ways to actually profit from the coming elimination of
the fossil fuel economy if you knew anything about the physics,
chemistry and biology of the planet you live on.
Dave Head
>Another Republican Organized Crime Sewer Rat emerges from the Toilet...
>yared...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Kennedy tries to halt windmills
>> A fight to block alternative fuel development that could replace
>> oil-burning power plants for communities along the Nantucket Sound has
>> created an unusual alliance on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Edward M.
>> Kennedy backing the fight against the green proposal.
>> at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060302-124537-9804r.htm
>
>It is NOT a green proposal. Green proposals do not include eyesores and
>wildlife hazards.
No, there are really no green proposals, except to oppose everything.
This is the height of idiocy, opposing renewable energy exploitation.
>
>Get your definitions straight.
>
>If you want GREEN wind power you have to use these:
>http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
Let somebody actually build it, an they'll be another set of greens that are
against it. I can see being against it myself, since a decent array of them
would obstruct the view of the rest of the horizon.
And this is really convenient, too (not): "The raceway wind-power conversion to
electricity is described in particular details in another document. "
This thing looks inefficiently small, as well as noisy. Get wind passing thru
all those orfices and listen to the howl. The overall pattern of it appears to
be how people build sirens.
>Named Eagle's Roost Wind Towers, wildlife safe.
>Not These:
>http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
>
>Here's the EYESORE that the Republican Sewer Rats want to put
>everywhere:
>http://ecosyn.us/wind/visual_impacts/wind_turbines_01.jpg
Odd definition of eyesore. They are beautiful, especially when they are in
motion. And yet someone putting an essentially opaque cylinderical structure,
and putting them in rows after rows so as to obscure the horizon, is better? I
think not. (And if you don't put 'em in row after row, you're wasting available
wind - windy places are not as common as people think - there are actual "wind
prospectors" who search the surface of the earth looking for naturally windy
places. These places, at least those that will support wind generation, are
fairly rare.)
H2-PV NOW
Republican Organized Crime toilet, Dave Head wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2006 13:32:35 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote:
>
> >Another Republican Organized Crime Sewer Rat emerges from the Toilet...
> >yared...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Kennedy tries to halt windmills
> >> A fight to block alternative fuel development that could replace
> >> oil-burning power plants for communities along the Nantucket Sound has
> >> created an unusual alliance on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Edward M.
> >> Kennedy backing the fight against the green proposal.
> >> at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060302-124537-9804r.htm
> >
> >It is NOT a green proposal. Green proposals do not include eyesores and
> >wildlife hazards.
>
> No, there are really no green proposals, except to oppose everything.
>
> This is the height of idiocy, opposing renewable energy exploitation.
>
> >
> >Get your definitions straight.
> >
> >If you want GREEN wind power you have to use these:
> >http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
>
> Let somebody actually build it, an they'll be another set of greens that are
> against it. I can see being against it myself, since a decent array of them
> would obstruct the view of the rest of the horizon.
You and your pal Teddy Kennedy oppose ugly obstructions on the skyline.
Why do you sewage-cover swamp creatures crawing out of the Republican
Organized Crime toilet angue against everything. This is the height of
idiocy, opposing renewable energy exploitation just because it blocks
your view. Get back into your septic tank you smell troll.
> And this is really convenient, too (not): "The raceway wind-power conversion to
> electricity is described in particular details in another document. "
Opps. My bad. I decided to hold off on posting the inner details until
I sounded out some people about patenting this first. You'll just have
to use your aerodynamics engineering degree to figure out what kind of
wind sails are behind those openings and use your electrical
engineering degree to figure out what kind of generators those sails
are attached to.
> This thing looks inefficiently small, as well as noisy.
But the big wind propellers look efficient and quiet? Big wind turbines
have severe noise issues associated with them, not to mention throwing
ice and sometimes throwing broken props a football-field distance away.
All that empty space between the propellers that are as big as the
Statue of Liberty looks efficient to you? Why wouldn't the efficiency
increase if there were even less propellers? In fact, it would be super
efficient if it had none at all, because to you, the LACK of anything
to intersect with most of the air looks most efficent. Strange concept
-- must be Creation Science, how nothingness to interact with the wind
improves efficiency.
> Get wind passing thru
> all those orfices and listen to the howl. The overall pattern of it appears to
> be how people build sirens.
People build diaphrams behind the horns to reverberate the sounds.
That's how concert loudspeakers function in banks like these and that's
how sirens function. How loud is the siren when it is NOT honking? Ever
noticed any earsores from a bank of concert speakers that was not
powered on?
>
> >Named Eagle's Roost Wind Towers, wildlife safe.
>
> >Not These:
> >http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
> >
> >Here's the EYESORE that the Republican Sewer Rats want to put
> >everywhere:
> >http://ecosyn.us/wind/visual_impacts/wind_turbines_01.jpg
>
> Odd definition of eyesore. They are beautiful, especially when they are in
> motion. And yet someone putting an essentially opaque cylinderical structure,
> and putting them in rows after rows so as to obscure the horizon, is better? I
> think not. (And if you don't put 'em in row after row, you're wasting available
> wind - windy places are not as common as people think - there are actual "wind
> prospectors" who search the surface of the earth looking for naturally windy
> places. These places, at least those that will support wind generation, are
> fairly rare.)
Too bad your school taught Creation Science instead of real science.
You were deprived from ever knowing how much power the wind has and how
to figure out whether this design captures closest to the maximum
amounts of any system ever shown to you. But, on the bright side, you
do know a lot about how Noah's Ark deposited all the rare species in
Madagascar and the Amazon jungles, so your science class at least
entertained you with amusing stories. I'll bet you never fell asleep
once in that class, compared to, say, math class, where you hardly
opened your eyes once the whole semester.
Dave Head
>Another abusive festering sewage-covered creature crawls out of the
>Republican Organized Crime toilet, Dave Head wrote:
>> On 2 Mar 2006 13:32:35 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Another Republican Organized Crime Sewer Rat emerges from the Toilet...
>> >yared...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> Kennedy tries to halt windmills
>> >> A fight to block alternative fuel development that could replace
>> >> oil-burning power plants for communities along the Nantucket Sound has
>> >> created an unusual alliance on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Edward M.
>> >> Kennedy backing the fight against the green proposal.
>> >> at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060302-124537-9804r.htm
>> >
>> >It is NOT a green proposal. Green proposals do not include eyesores and
>> >wildlife hazards.
>>
>> No, there are really no green proposals, except to oppose everything.
>>
>> This is the height of idiocy, opposing renewable energy exploitation.
>>
>> >
>> >Get your definitions straight.
>> >
>> >If you want GREEN wind power you have to use these:
>> >http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
>>
>> Let somebody actually build it, an they'll be another set of greens that are
>> against it. I can see being against it myself, since a decent array of them
>> would obstruct the view of the rest of the horizon.
>
>You and your pal Teddy Kennedy oppose ugly obstructions on the skyline.
Well, when they're really ugly, like really tall grain silos...
>Why do you sewage-cover swamp creatures crawing out of the Republican
>Organized Crime toilet angue against everything. This is the height of
>idiocy, opposing renewable energy exploitation just because it blocks
>your view. Get back into your septic tank you smell troll.
>> And this is really convenient, too (not): "The raceway wind-power conversion to
>> electricity is described in particular details in another document. "
>
>Opps. My bad.
Uh huh...
>I decided to hold off on posting the inner details until
>I sounded out some people about patenting this first.
Quite a few people worked their guts out to make those large propellers
actually work, and you're at the "patent it" stage, while claiming to replace
something that's working well???
>You'll just have
>to use your aerodynamics engineering degree to figure out what kind of
>wind sails are behind those openings and use your electrical
>engineering degree to figure out what kind of generators those sails
>are attached to.
Naw.... I only have to pay taxes and die...
>> This thing looks inefficiently small, as well as noisy.
>
>But the big wind propellers look efficient and quiet?
Having driven _thru_ an operating wind generator farm, and not having heard
much of anything, I guess they're pretty quiet.
>Biig wind turbines
>have severe noise issues associated with them,
Not the ones I was near...
>not to mention throwing
>ice and sometimes throwing broken props a football-field distance away.
Well... nothing's perfect. Don't build your house underneath one, I guess...
>All that empty space between the propellers that are as big as the
>Statue of Liberty looks efficient to you? Why wouldn't the efficiency
>increase if there were even less propellers? In fact, it would be super
>efficient if it had none at all, because to you, the LACK of anything
>to intersect with most of the air looks most efficent. Strange concept
>-- must be Creation Science, how nothingness to interact with the wind
>improves efficiency.
A lot of really smart people worked their guts out to make these wind turbines
actually work. If they thought they could get more energy by putting them
closer together, they would have...
>> Get wind passing thru
>> all those orfices and listen to the howl. The overall pattern of it appears to
>> be how people build sirens.
>
>People build diaphrams behind the horns to reverberate the sounds.
>That's how concert loudspeakers function in banks like these and that's
>how sirens function. How loud is the siren when it is NOT honking? Ever
>noticed any earsores from a bank of concert speakers that was not
>powered on?
This wind silo is still going to be a howler, I bet.
>> >Named Eagle's Roost Wind Towers, wildlife safe.
>>
>> >Not These:
>> >http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
>> >
>> >Here's the EYESORE that the Republican Sewer Rats want to put
>> >everywhere:
>> >http://ecosyn.us/wind/visual_impacts/wind_turbines_01.jpg
>>
>> Odd definition of eyesore. They are beautiful, especially when they are in
>> motion. And yet someone putting an essentially opaque cylinderical structure,
>> and putting them in rows after rows so as to obscure the horizon, is better? I
>> think not. (And if you don't put 'em in row after row, you're wasting available
>> wind - windy places are not as common as people think - there are actual "wind
>> prospectors" who search the surface of the earth looking for naturally windy
>> places. These places, at least those that will support wind generation, are
>> fairly rare.)
>
>Too bad your school taught Creation Science instead of real science.
>You were deprived from ever knowing how much power the wind has and how
>to figure out whether this design captures closest to the maximum
>amounts of any system ever shown to you. But, on the bright side, you
>do know a lot about how Noah's Ark deposited all the rare species in
>Madagascar and the Amazon jungles, so your science class at least
>entertained you with amusing stories. I'll bet you never fell asleep
>once in that class, compared to, say, math class, where you hardly
>opened your eyes once the whole semester.
What was that rant to do with how much wind there is? There are naturally
windy places, and there are places that wind doesn't blow much. Them's the
facts...
>> >Here's the alternative Scenic Eagle's Roost Wind Turbines:
>> >http://ecosyn.us/wind/scenery/scenery.html
DPH
Dave Head
a commercial electrical grid wind generator - if it isn't as noisy as it looks,
that is.
DPH
H2-PV NOW
I agree. Ban all grain Silo blight on the scenic farmscapes. That's the
ticket.
> >Why do you sewage-cover swamp creatures crawing out of the Republican
> >Organized Crime toilet angue against everything. This is the height of
> >idiocy, opposing renewable energy exploitation just because it blocks
> >your view. Get back into your septic tank you smell troll.
>
>
> >> And this is really convenient, too (not): "The raceway wind-power conversion to
> >> electricity is described in particular details in another document. "
> >
> >Opps. My bad.
>
> Uh huh...
>
> >I decided to hold off on posting the inner details until
> >I sounded out some people about patenting this first.
>
> Quite a few people worked their guts out to make those large propellers
> actually work, and you're at the "patent it" stage, while claiming to replace
> something that's working well???
No. I'n not at the patent it stage. I'm at the stage to sound out a few
people. Then maybe patent it later or let it fall into public domain.
Those poor people with propeller guts hanging out picked a harder
method to get wind energy. They took a 600 year old grain mill idea and
adapted it to turning a turbine instead of a millstone. That worked 60
years ago. Then some people said, lets make them bigger. That took lots
of working guts hanging out. Then somebody said lets make them even
bigger. The trail of guts is quite long by now.
Maybe if they had worked their brains out instead of their guts they
might have said "Let's study this from Newton's Laws of physics". We
don't want to grind grain and we don't want to pump water for the
livestocks, and what we really want is to catch all the light breezes
and amplify them, and restrict the most violent gales to something less
than destruction, and use everything in-between as well.
How long does that take. The towers you see are the exoskeleton They
are made of four flat planes of material, repeated around the circle
and repeated layer by layer. How long, Einstein, should that take to
come up with? It doesn't matter which way the wind changes direction,
the building is instantly, at the speed of light, correctly possitioned
to take that wind impact and translate it into useful power.
Why does it take centuries, or decades, or even years to do that?
Because the inner openings are constricted, and the surfaces are
angled, the oncoming wind has only two choices: either dodge the
building or go through it. Molecules of air, having brains only
slightly larger than your, don't have any real say in the matter, but
go with the flow just like you do. In the case of the wind, the path of
least resistence of flow of 60% of the face of the building is through
the building, and that is close to the maximum theoretical efficiency
that wind can possibly get.
In the case of propellers, 90% of the wind is missing the propellers at
an instant of time, flying right between those huge gaps between
propeller blades. Only 10% or less of the wind at that second inside
the propeller sweep area is actually impacting on a prop.
I say 90% is missing because I an being generous. It may be more like
94% of the wind is not impacting on a prop.
Because the Eagle's roost intercepts and channelizes 60% of the sweep
area of the building it is at least 6 times more productive than a prop
with the same sweep area. It would be ten times more efficient than a
prop if the props miss 94% of the wind and only interact with 6%.
> >You'll just have
> >to use your aerodynamics engineering degree to figure out what kind of
> >wind sails are behind those openings and use your electrical
> >engineering degree to figure out what kind of generators those sails
> >are attached to.
>
> Naw.... I only have to pay taxes and die...
>
> >> This thing looks inefficiently small, as well as noisy.
> >
> >But the big wind propellers look efficient and quiet?
>
> Having driven _thru_ an operating wind generator farm, and not having heard
> much of anything, I guess they're pretty quiet.
Next time, drive through when the wind is blowing.
> >Big wind turbines
> >have severe noise issues associated with them,
>
> Not the ones I was near...
Then again Republican Organized Crime Borgs never hear anything that
conflicts with their dogma. You were probably paying too much attention
to Rush Limbaugh on the radio that you couldn't hear the props.
> >not to mention throwing
> >ice and sometimes throwing broken props a football-field distance away.
>
> Well... nothing's perfect. Don't build your house underneath one, I guess...
>
>
> >All that empty space between the propellers that are as big as the
> >Statue of Liberty looks efficient to you? Why wouldn't the efficiency
> >increase if there were even less propellers? In fact, it would be super
> >efficient if it had none at all, because to you, the LACK of anything
> >to intersect with most of the air looks most efficent. Strange concept
> >-- must be Creation Science, how nothingness to interact with the wind
> >improves efficiency.
>
> A lot of really smart people worked their guts out to make these wind turbines
> actually work. If they thought they could get more energy by putting them
> closer together, they would have...
Which is about the same reason that you won't see fencerows of these
tower either. because of downstream turbulence the rule of thumb is
space wind generators ten times the distance of their height. Only in
certain canyons where the prevaling winds are very predictable can you
put turbines closer together where you know one won't be spoiling the
next one. The big turbine towers cost $2-$3 million each, so nobody
wants an idle turbine because the upstream one is spoiling the windflow
to the downwind one.
> >> Get wind passing thru
> >> all those orfices and listen to the howl. The overall pattern of it appears to
> >> be how people build sirens.
> >
> >People build diaphrams behind the horns to reverberate the sounds.
> >That's how concert loudspeakers function in banks like these and that's
> >how sirens function. How loud is the siren when it is NOT honking? Ever
> >noticed any earsores from a bank of concert speakers that was not
> >powered on?
>
> This wind silo is still going to be a howler, I bet.
The noise will be inside. Maybe next time you are out driving around
you can take the tour of a power plant and listen to their turbines.
The gas operated ones are converted commercial jet engine turbines. The
tour guide may pass out hearing protection earmuffs for the tour. Go
listen to the Hoover dam turbines -- don't forget to bring hearing
protection.
LIsten to yourself, Mr. Environmentalist complainer of noise pollution.
megawatt powerplants built for the lowest cost out of cheap materials
like spaceage composites sounds like money, your God, remember?
Here's the bitter facts. The places with great wind potential are far
from the places people like to live because people don't like windblown
areas. The grid power lines are far from those places too. People like
living in less windy areas, and that's where the power customers are
and that's where the power transmission line are close.
Wind power solutions that concentrate lower winds into raceways to
double or quadruple the power of lower-speed winds are what people need
and want, not offshore monstrosities that are twice the height of the
Stature of Liberty.
General Electric wants giant wind turbines because they are one of the
few corporations in the world that make the big turbines. The public is
not demanding giant turbines -- it's the same old corporate
string-pulling on the Republican Organized Crime Borg troops howling
because Rush and the Moonie Times told them to howl about the fat slob
Kennedy. It's the "Talking Points" given to the paid PR firms like the
Swiftboaters at DCI running the TechCentralBorgCollective.com, or Koch
Oil's CATO Institute that is passing on the program to the robots to
howl on cue. Nice robot, here's your doggy treat reward.
But it turns out that YOU don't like ugly wind power blocking YOUR
view, just like the fat slob Kennedy, and YOU don't like noisy wind
genarators, just like the Chappaquidick Kid. So what does that make
YOU, Mr. Greenie environmentalist opposing my capitalist plot to put my
wind towers everywhere I damn well feel like, you liberal fellow
traveller of Kennedy? I bet you drive drunk on adulterous dates just
like your heros Kennedy and George Bush. You probably eat tofu too.
beav
not just Teddy Kennedy and Kerry, but John Warner and Lamar Alexander
and RFK jr and Mitt Romney
Don Young? who the F*** is he?
its not because the windmills will be close to the "shipping lanes",
its because there are "shipping lanes" all over that area.
navigable waters? sure. i suppose. however the windmills would be
mounted on Horseshoe Shoals...
being a Massachusetts conservation area since the 1970's would prevent
disturbing hte bottom? tell that to the oyster boats that cruise that
entire area.
conservative/liberal/communist/anarchist. it doesn't matter. the
political forces lined up against the wind farm makes this look like a
real blowjob...
beav
Teddy's a Dem. the fact that the Pubs are involved in this screwjob
just makes the irony more delicious.
>
>
>> And this is really convenient, too (not): "The raceway wind-power conversion to
>> electricity is described in particular details in another document. "
>
>Opps. My bad. I decided to hold off on posting the inner details until
>I sounded out some people about patenting this first. You'll just have
>to use your aerodynamics engineering degree to figure out what kind of
>wind sails are behind those openings and use your electrical
>engineering degree to figure out what kind of generators those sails
>are attached to.
Cape Wind is coming up the financing on their own. If you have a
better mousetrap, sell Cape Wind on your idea.
expected visibilty from shore will be tiny dots with rotating arms on
the horizon. the majority simply won't be visible.
wild life impact is calculated by the Army Corp of Engineers to be
insignificant even with these "neandethal designs".
bill
thought not. did you notice that there were not even pictures of a
WORKING PROTOTYPE on that page?
Do you know why it hasn't caught on by any chance?? because it is
virtually useless for generating power, several times as expensive, and
disturbs a much larger footprint, but don't let little things like
reality get in the way of your wet dreams.
The savonius design is great if what you want to do is pump up a
few hundred gallons of water per day for livestock watering in the
australian outback, and your available materials are 2 55 gallon drums,
but if you want to actually generate significant power, the blade style
horizontal shaft designs are really the only way to go.
bill
5 that scream "X is the devil itself"
This is one of the biggest problems facing the environment. if
the environmentalists could get together and decide what is important,
and just fight for that, everything else would fall into place very
easily.
Objecting to putting "ugly" windmills (which I happen to think are
beautiful pieces of kinesthetic art) in a "shipping lane" where the
only people who will ever see them are the crews of fishing boats is
dumb.
H2-PV NOW
Organized Crime sewers beav wrote:
> Cape Wind is coming up the financing on their own. If you have a
> better mousetrap, sell Cape Wind on your idea.
Still considering whether to patent and sell, or just dump into public
domain for free. The patent clock is ticking and I have 10 months left
from first public disclosure, else it is free-for-all. Frankly I have
$400,000 worth of stacked up inventions to possibly patent ahead of
this. (That's 40 inventions with an average patent process costs of
$10K each.) I'm not even a fan of patents as they are nothing more than
a hunting licence to sue infringers, and the average patent lawsuit
costs $1,000,000 to prosecute with only 50% chance of success. These
wind towers don't come close to being the top money-maker, compared to
the breakthroughs in Conformable Hydrogen Tanks, improved PV Silicon
Purification, H2-PV synergized electrolysis process, the Water
Purification, the Octet Trusses, and on and on and on. Why would I even
want to mess around with any product worth less than $100 million when
I'm sitting on the motherlode. Probably in 10 months I'll let it slide
into public domain and tell you all the details about what goes on
inside the tower.
You wouldn't even begin to understand MagLev frictionless linear
generators, but legions of electrical Engineers will be slapping their
foreheads saying "Why didn't I think of that; it's so simple".
If you don't want it China and India does. They have the cheap
carbon-fiber and cheap labor in India. It wouldn't take them long to
build factories turning out 100 towers per day.
> >> >Here's the alternative Scenic Eagle's Roost Wind Turbines:
> >> >http://ecosyn.us/wind/scenery/scenery.html
>
>
> expected visibilty from shore will be tiny dots with rotating arms on
> the horizon. the majority simply won't be visible.
The attraction to Cape Cod is the unobstructed views of nature. Tourism
is the main economy. The boaters don't like the offshore eyesores
either. Lots of big-spending luxury yachts pull into Cape Cod, or used
to be before it got ugly.
> wild life impact is calculated by the Army Corp of Engineers to be
> insignificant even with these "neandethal designs".
That would be the same Army Corpse of Engineers who did the NOLA
levees?
The designs are extremely inefficient, never intersection more than
about 6% of the swept area of the props rotation. Those props kill
raptors out of proportion to common birds, as predators are always
scarcer.
Ever watched Eagles fish in the ocean? At Cape Canaveral I watched from
a causeway while waiting to watch a rocket launch.
Raptors are so focussed on the prey that they don't see the blades
until too late. Prey birds have learned to lure the predators into the
blades.
Eagles can roost on my towers without harm, and the design is better
than 60% efficient because that's how much of the sweep area is
intersected by the vane-guides at any one instant.
Wind power operates on the principle that for every doubling of wind
speed, the power is quadrupled. These funnels channel 100% of the
incoming wind into 60% size outlets and they force it into optimal
direction for the sails inside. That means that winds too weak to turn
one of those giants are increased by one or two whole classes in this
design.
There are about 20 states which don't have any wind resources high
enough to turn one of those giant props. Onshore Massachusettes is one
of those states. It is only off shore that any would work of that
inefficient design.
Too bad your schools taught Creation Science instead of real science so
you could understand what I am talking about.
Because these towers don't throw ice, and they don't throw the
occasional broken blade distances greater than a football field, these
EAGLE'S ROOST Wind Towers can be put in cities on top of tall
buildings. They can be put in lots more places where the winds never
get so strong. Eagles can still roost on them right in the heart of
cities if they want to. There's nothing sticking out of these towers
that can hurt them.
bill
help you not lose what you get, they don't help you get anything new,
and if you think you are the first person to come up with the savonius
design, you are sorely mistaken. that would be savonius. the
fundamental problem is that in any rotating cylinder design, half the
cylinder is rotating against the wind. kind of a no brainer if you had
a brain.
H2-PV NOW
Congratulation on understanding why friction is a bad thing in all
generator designs.
Congratulations on understand that losing what you already have is a
bad thing.
Congratulations on understanding why you don't want any driveshafts,
gears, pullys to lose what you paid for.
Now let's see if we can penetrate the thick bone protection covering up
your pea-sized brain.
Savonius generators expose half of the device to the wind at reverse
angle on the return portion of the stroke. As you observe, that is a
bad thing.
The exoskeleton shown shields the return stroke oner the approximately
40% of the tower where it is vulnerable.
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
The funnels are skewed, not perpendicular to the tower center axis.
See details you missed:
Figure #4
http://ecosyn.us/wind/Dark_Tower_5.JPG TOP VIEW looking down
These are the vanes between apartures. They are angled so that the wind
hits sloped surfaces on four sides and moves in the path of least
resistence, which is channeled and focussed.
Figure #5
http://ecosyn.us/wind/Dark_Tower_6.JPG
No matter which direction the wind is coming from the building always
presents identical faces to the wind. Even if gusts come from two
directions in some turbulent burst, each gust sees the identical
presentation. It has two choices: flow through the path of least
resistence through the building or flow the path of least resistence
around the building.
40% of the wind vanes make the path of least resistence to the left
around the building, and 60% channel the winds through the building.
100% of the wind entering into the building meets the hemi-torus sail
assembly, which is made of unitary construction for strength in gale
situaltions, but made of space-age composites for lightness.
In propeller turbines only about 6% of the wind ever impacts a blade.
This is a 10x improvement over propellers.
http://ecosyn.us/wind/Dark_Tower_7.JPG
You can see which funnels will admit wind, and which ones will shield
the sails on the return stroke. I can't show you the inner details
quite yet for business reasons, but there is no particular wind drag
impacting the hemi-toroid sails assembly.
What you can see, when you put down the cheap plastic jug of Jim Beam
and stop looking at the world though the bottom of a fuzzy bottle, is a
design which is dirt cheap to build (exoskeleton made of four flat
pieces joined in a modular particular piece, modules repeated around
the circle, and repeated from top to bottom). Multiple concentric
circles give rigidity and strength far exceeding steel tower
propellers.
Local construction crews can get the work putting these up versus those
big propellers are made in Brazil, and some of those giant turbines are
made in Mitusbishi Heavy Industries in Japan, with the towers erected
by specialized crews who move from state to state. The people where the
propellers are emplaced get little or nothing of jobs from powering
America.
Once again the slimey Republican Borg Collective is out in force to
badmouth an American solution to strengthen the multinational
stranglehold over everything.
Get back into your feces pit, you troll beast from hell.
bill
> generator designs.
>
> Congratulations on understand that losing what you already have is a
> bad thing.
>
> Congratulations on understanding why you don't want any driveshafts,
> gears, pullys to lose what you paid for.
>
> Now let's see if we can penetrate the thick bone protection covering up
> your pea-sized brain.
>
> Savonius generators expose half of the device to the wind at reverse
> angle on the return portion of the stroke. As you observe, that is a
> bad thing.
>
> The exoskeleton shown shields the return stroke oner the approximately
> 40% of the tower where it is vulnerable.
>
> http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
>
> The funnels are skewed, not perpendicular to the tower center axis.
>
> See details you missed:
>
> Figure #4
> http://ecosyn.us/wind/Dark_Tower_5.JPG TOP VIEW looking down
>
> These are the vanes between apartures. They are angled so that the wind
> hits sloped surfaces on four sides and moves in the path of least
> resistence, which is channeled and focussed.
thus losing 30-40% of your energy in friction and turbulence
before it gets into the tower.
> 100% of the wind entering into the building meets the hemi-torus sail
> assembly, which is made of unitary construction for strength in gale
> situaltions, but made of space-age composites for lightness.
>
> In propeller turbines only about 6% of the wind ever impacts a blade.
> This is a 10x improvement over propellers.
so what you have here is basically, a big funnel (inefficient from
the start when dealing with compressible gasses) leading into "trust
me, it's efficient". I admit that it is possible that you have solved
the savonius inefficiency, but only at the expense of 10 times the
inefficiency before the wind even touches a blade.
> http://ecosyn.us/wind/Dark_Tower_7.JPG
>
> You can see which funnels will admit wind, and which ones will shield
> the sails on the return stroke. I can't show you the inner details
> quite yet for business reasons, but there is no particular wind drag
> impacting the hemi-toroid sails assembly.
>
> What you can see, when you put down the cheap plastic jug of Jim Beam
> and stop looking at the world though the bottom of a fuzzy bottle, is a
> design which is dirt cheap to build (exoskeleton made of four flat
> pieces joined in a modular particular piece, modules repeated around
> the circle, and repeated from top to bottom). Multiple concentric
> circles give rigidity and strength far exceeding steel tower
> propellers.
>
> Local construction crews can get the work putting these up versus those
> big propellers are made in Brazil, and some of those giant turbines are
> made in Mitusbishi Heavy Industries in Japan,
And the rest by ge in rochester ny.
> with the towers erected
> by specialized crews who move from state to state. The people where the
> propellers are emplaced get little or nothing of jobs from powering
> America.
Do you even have the first idea of construction cost estimating??
What you have there is a VASTLY more complex, heavy, and difficult to
manufacture and install device than a simple tower with a prefabbed
nacelle and propellor. It is an absolutely ludicrous idea to think
that local crews will be able to assemble and install multi-story,
mag-lev space-age composite white elephants.
> Once again the slimey Republican Borg Collective is out in force to
> badmouth an American solution to strengthen the multinational
> stranglehold over everything.
>
> Get back into your feces pit, you troll beast from hell.
Now you are really showing your true stripes. you are a negative
value poster who found a few good buzzwords on the internet, made up
some bullshit that makes it painfully obvious that you have no concept
at all of what you are talking about, and then insult people who try to
correct your profound ignorance.
Have a nice day.
beav
>>
>> expected visibilty from shore will be tiny dots with rotating arms on
>> the horizon. the majority simply won't be visible.
>
>The attraction to Cape Cod is the unobstructed views of nature. Tourism
>is the main economy. The boaters don't like the offshore eyesores
>either. Lots of big-spending luxury yachts pull into Cape Cod, or used
>to be before it got ugly.
wow. that's what Teddy said.
so. the dots with rotating arms will obstruct views? what about the
current layer of shit that the Sagamore oil burning generator covers
the entire Cape with, now?
this is really NOT a hard choice.
>
>
>> wild life impact is calculated by the Army Corp of Engineers to be
>> insignificant even with these "neandethal designs".
>
>That would be the same Army Corpse of Engineers who did the NOLA
>levees?
are you confusing engineering with Gov't contracting?
>
>The designs are extremely inefficient, never intersection more than
>about 6% of the swept area of the props rotation. Those props kill
>raptors out of proportion to common birds, as predators are always
>scarcer.
>
>Ever watched Eagles fish in the ocean? At Cape Canaveral I watched from
>a causeway while waiting to watch a rocket launch.
sure have. i watched a bald eagle catch a fish out of the Merrimack
River right outside my office window.
while you may have wonderful memories of eagles at Cape Canaveral, i'd
be willing to bet the eagles were fishing on the intracoastal
waterway.
where these proposed windmills would go on Horseshoe Shoals, the only
birds they'd potentially sushi would be seagulls. you see, eagles,
hawks owls and other raptors have very little reason to be out to sea.
>
>Raptors are so focussed on the prey that they don't see the blades
>until too late. Prey birds have learned to lure the predators into the
>blades.
>
>Eagles can roost on my towers without harm, and the design is better
>than 60% efficient because that's how much of the sweep area is
>intersected by the vane-guides at any one instant.
i'm just guessing that neither will happen.
>
>Wind power operates on the principle that for every doubling of wind
>speed, the power is quadrupled. These funnels channel 100% of the
>incoming wind into 60% size outlets and they force it into optimal
>direction for the sails inside. That means that winds too weak to turn
>one of those giants are increased by one or two whole classes in this
>design.
>
>There are about 20 states which don't have any wind resources high
>enough to turn one of those giant props. Onshore Massachusettes is one
>of those states. It is only off shore that any would work of that
>inefficient design.
hence the current proposal.
>
<yeah yeah yeah. otherwise snipped>
bill
> >than 60% efficient because that's how much of the sweep area is
> >intersected by the vane-guides at any one instant.
>
> i'm just guessing that neither will happen.
You can stop guessing. There is NO chance of this design working.
What will happen is that a high pressure area will form on the
upwind side, forcing air to flow AROUND the tower rather than into it,
and since bernouli's effect will then take hold, you will lose almost
all of the incoming wind to the low-pressure flow around the front of
the tower.
There is a reason that in all useable designs for wind generation,
the vanes are directly exposed to the wind. With the large open
designs, they are taking advantage of the fact that the aerodynamics
work best when you have a free flow of air across the vanes. that's
why the vanes must be far enough apart so that they do not conflict
with each other, effectively "stealing each other's wind".
> >Wind power operates on the principle that for every doubling of wind
> >speed, the power is quadrupled. These funnels channel 100% of the
> >incoming wind into 60% size outlets and they force it into optimal
> >direction for the sails inside. That means that winds too weak to turn
> >one of those giants are increased by one or two whole classes in this
> >design.
> >There are about 20 states which don't have any wind resources high
> >enough to turn one of those giant props. Onshore Massachusettes is one
> >of those states. It is only off shore that any would work of that
> >inefficient design.
E=mv^2 is the kinetic energy equation. this is for "raw" incoming
wind. Any attempt to increase the velocity will only lose some of that
precious available energy.
Scott Nudds
"bill" <ford_pr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> You can stop guessing. There is NO chance of this design working.
> What will happen is that a high pressure area will form on the
> upwind side, forcing air to flow AROUND the tower rather than into it,
> and since bernouli's effect will then take hold, you will lose almost
> all of the incoming wind to the low-pressure flow around the front of
> the tower.
Sorry. Bernouli's effect doesn't apply here, Bernouli's theorem only
applies in closed pipes and only when the fluids moving are incmpressable.
bill
AAAANNNNTT! WRONG ANSWER, bernouli's effect applies anywhere
where there is a moving fluid.
bill
for the specific application listed here, see figure 16, "the
stagnation point", and the related math
H2-PV NOW
bill wrote:
> > Congratulation on understanding why friction is a bad thing in all
> > generator designs.
> >
> > Congratulations on understand that losing what you already have is a
> > bad thing.
> >
> > Congratulations on understanding why you don't want any driveshafts,
> > gears, pullys to lose what you paid for.
> >
> > Now let's see if we can penetrate the thick bone protection covering up
> > your pea-sized brain.
> >
> > Savonius generators expose half of the device to the wind at reverse
> > angle on the return portion of the stroke. As you observe, that is a
> > bad thing.
> >
> > The exoskeleton shown shields the return stroke oner the approximately
> > 40% of the tower where it is vulnerable.
> >
> > http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
> >
> > The funnels are skewed, not perpendicular to the tower center axis.
> >
> > See details you missed:
> >
> > Figure #4
> > http://ecosyn.us/wind/Dark_Tower_5.JPG TOP VIEW looking down
> >
> > These are the vanes between apartures. They are angled so that the wind
> > hits sloped surfaces on four sides and moves in the path of least
> > resistence, which is channeled and focussed.
>
> thus losing 30-40% of your energy in friction and turbulence
> before it gets into the tower.
Do you mean like the nasty red friction burns I get whenever I ride in
a convertable going 25 miles per hour or higher <snicker>. Is that the
friction you mean?
Or is the turbulence losses like when another fluid is put through a
funnel-shaped opening in hydro-electric dams <snicker>. Is that the
pressure-induced turbulance that cause no power to ever get generated
by fluids passing through constrictions <guffaw>???
Your Creation Science has all the answers, so explain why the friction
doesn't wear those wind-turbine propellers down to the nubs in no time
<hehehehehe>.
You creation science dolts sure are fun.
> > 100% of the wind entering into the building meets the hemi-torus sail
> > assembly, which is made of unitary construction for strength in gale
> > situaltions, but made of space-age composites for lightness.
> >
> > In propeller turbines only about 6% of the wind ever impacts a blade.
> > This is a 10x improvement over propellers.
>
> so what you have here is basically, a big funnel (inefficient from
> the start when dealing with compressible gasses) leading into "trust
> me, it's efficient". I admit that it is possible that you have solved
> the savonius inefficiency, but only at the expense of 10 times the
> inefficiency before the wind even touches a blade.
"Trust Me" says the Creation Scientist "... but only at the expense of
10 times the inefficiency before the wind even touches a blade."
I guess this is why fan-jets and scramjets are against the laws of
"Fisiks" in your universe. By the way, what color is the sky in your
world?
That's PRECISELY 10 times? or is it 9.7 times, or maybe 10.3 times? You
sure your calcuilator had fully charged batteries when you ran those
numbers? I mean if your batteries were weak, maybe the inefficiency is
really 10 trillion million billion times???
You mind posting your math and let us all double check how you got
those numbers? We wouldn't want to be off by 10 trillion million
billion times, just because you made a teeny-weenie mistake processing
your creation science math formulas, now would we???
> > http://ecosyn.us/wind/Dark_Tower_7.JPG
> >
> > You can see which funnels will admit wind, and which ones will shield
> > the sails on the return stroke. I can't show you the inner details
> > quite yet for business reasons, but there is no particular wind drag
> > impacting the hemi-toroid sails assembly.
> >
> > What you can see, when you put down the cheap plastic jug of Jim Beam
> > and stop looking at the world though the bottom of a fuzzy bottle, is a
> > design which is dirt cheap to build (exoskeleton made of four flat
> > pieces joined in a modular particular piece, modules repeated around
> > the circle, and repeated from top to bottom). Multiple concentric
> > circles give rigidity and strength far exceeding steel tower
> > propellers.
> >
> > Local construction crews can get the work putting these up versus those
> > big propellers are made in Brazil, and some of those giant turbines are
> > made in Mitusbishi Heavy Industries in Japan,
>
> And the rest by ge in rochester ny.
>
> > with the towers erected
> > by specialized crews who move from state to state. The people where the
> > propellers are emplaced get little or nothing of jobs from powering
> > America.
>
> Do you even have the first idea of construction cost estimating??
> What you have there is a VASTLY more complex, heavy, and difficult to
> manufacture and install device than a simple tower with a prefabbed
> nacelle and propellor. It is an absolutely ludicrous idea to think
The tower weighs how much? and the steel tower with propellers and
nacelle weighs how much? Where did you get your numbers -- did god
whisper in your ears or was it those other voices nobody else can
hear???
> that local crews will be able to assemble and install multi-story,
> mag-lev space-age composite white elephants.
Why not? Ordinary human beings make maglev transportation systems in
advanced civilizations, and ride on them. IT might take a few decades
or centuries before Americans ever see one, unless they go to Europe or
Asia, that is.
http://www.trafficlinq.com/advancedtransportation.htm
MagLev links
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1000/et1000s19.html
Is Maglev in our future?
"... The State of California's High Speed Rail Authority is charged
with the responsibility to develop a system linking Sacramento, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. They too have been analyzing
conventional steel wheel on steel rail systems for over 5 years, and
still have not made up their minds. It seems every politician and
transit bureaucrat is afraid of technology. In the meantime, the
Germans and Japanese have committed themselves to Maglev. In fact, SCAG
is favoring the German "Transrapid" design. ..."
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/maglevq.htm
*** Photos of Shanghai installation of Transrapid system, 2/23/2006
(see Maglev in China > Service TR Shanghai > Visual Impressions)
*** Zhonghua-6 -- a lightweight, suspended, maglev system being
developed in Dalian, China, (5/12/05)
*** HSST urban maglev train begins public service in Japan, (3/14/05)
*** UK Ultraspeed project - a maglev concept using German Transrapid
technology, (2/19/05)
*** Maglev project in Philippines underway - working toward a National
Maglev Initiative, (2/19/05)
Don't worry buckaroo... I'm sure Creation Science will discover how
MagLev works using the same process that a million monkeys on a million
typewriters eventually does produce a work of Shakespeare's.
> > Once again the slimey Republican Borg Collective is out in force to
> > badmouth an American solution to strengthen the multinational
> > stranglehold over everything.
> >
> > Get back into your feces pit, you troll beast from hell.
>
> Now you are really showing your true stripes.
YES! The guy finally got ONE thing RIGHT!
> you are a negative
> value poster who found a few good buzzwords on the internet, made up
> some bullshit that makes it painfully obvious that you have no concept
> at all of what you are talking about, and then insult people who try to
> correct your profound ignorance.
> Have a nice day.
Thanks for the laughs, right-wing retard.
H2-PV NOW
bill wrote:
> > >Eagles can roost on my towers without harm, and the design is better
> > >than 60% efficient because that's how much of the sweep area is
> > >intersected by the vane-guides at any one instant.
> >
> > i'm just guessing that neither will happen.
>
> You can stop guessing. There is NO chance of this design working.
> What will happen is that a high pressure area will form on the
> upwind side, forcing air to flow AROUND the tower rather than into it,
THANK YOU. I wondered why there is NEVER a draft or breeze comes into a
building from an opened door or window. I asked the pastor at the
Creation Science class, but he just said that Noah's Ark doesn't have
any windows and he would flunk me if I asked non-biblical-based
questions in science class again.
It's a good thing that air particles are so smart and know how to see
obstacles ahead of them. It shows real intelligence on their part. Not
only that. They have such nice manners, all cooperatively agreeing to
step aside to make room for those particles that might actually hit
something -- it's like they have radar or something. Too bad water is
not so smart as air. AS A FLUID IT FLOWS RIGHT INTO A PATH OF LEAST
RESISTENCE, but smart air can duck right around it. That's why
waterwheels work but nobody has ever built an operating windmill.
I guess this is why no windmills work and they are all some crazy hoax
put on by leftist socialists. As you proved with faultless logic, wind
meeting an obstruction will form a pressure wave and flow around
obstacles.
> and since bernouli's effect will then take hold, you will lose almost
> all of the incoming wind to the low-pressure flow around the front of
> the tower.
That smart air with radar isn't fooled for one minute by fancy-smancy
designs. No self-respecting air would ever enter into a tunnel without
knowing first what's on the other side. Like George Bush says "Always
have an exit-strategy before you invade someplace". (That is, George
H.W. Bush, 1991)
http://www.aeronautics.ws/optimization.html
"... Duplicating Bernoulli's Experiment with Variations
... We constructed 8 standpipes of varying diameters and a removable
venturi we could place on the end of water flow release pipe F.
Standpipes 1, 2, 5 and 8 were 1/8" inside diameter.
Standpipes 3 and 6 were 3/16" inside diameter.
Standpipes 4 and 7 were 3/8" inside diameter.
Standpipes of varing diameters ID's proved the test results were not
influenced by large or small diameter standpipes. ...
THEY DID BERNOULLI'S EXPERIMENT. HAVE YOU?
http://www.aeronautics.ws/blunders.html
http://www.bestaviation.net/art_what_makes_an_airplane_fly.asp
"... BERNOULLI'S PRINCIPLE has been proven mathematically several
times and disproven over and over in wind tunnel tests. The question
still exists as to how the theory was adopted at all since Bernoulli
himself died 123 years before the Wright brothers took the first
powered flight in 1903. Most experts concur that this principle has the
most flaws and the most followers. Go figure. ..."
http://amasci.com/wing/rotbal.html
"... The controversy about "Bernoulli versus Newton" is really a
controversy about two-D versus three-D. It's a controversy over the
physics of airfoils in two-dimensional "flatland" worlds, versus the
more ordinary physics of short 3D wings in a 3D world. ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lift_(force)
"... Yes the Bernoulli explanation is totally wrong. Apart from the
fact that it contradicts the observed ability of a wing to fly
inverted, and we know that a paper thin wing works perfectly well which
this explanation cannot support, and that it is based on the false
assumption that increased velocity causes a reduction in pressure (the
opposite being true), it also is based on the initial need for the air
to flow faster over the wing in order to "Cause" the pressure reduction
and NO ONE ever has an explanation as to why this air would go faster
(being longer over the top surface does not somehow magically change
into a force)... This change in speed is by definition an acceleration,
and by Newtons 3rd law, this requires a net force to cause such. For a
gas this "Force" must be in the form of a pressure gradient. Where did
the pressure gradient come from??? In order for the gas to accelerate
over the wing we MUST already have a pressure gradient along the
surface. This pressure gradient is due to the gas being diverted by the
passing wing. Several mathematical models fit the observed phenomenon
of wing function, but none of them "Explains why it happens" except
that the wing accelerates air one way, and the air applies an equal and
opposite force in the other direction... lift. Please gentlemen (and
ladies if any), apply basic physics to all of your arguments. If the
physics does not provide a COMPLETE explanation of the phenomena, then
it does not provide anything but heresay or opinion, neither of which
helps. Dave 2-1-2006 ..."
> There is a reason that in all useable designs for wind generation,
> the vanes are directly exposed to the wind. With the large open
> designs, they are taking advantage of the fact that the aerodynamics
> work best when you have a free flow of air across the vanes. that's
> why the vanes must be far enough apart so that they do not conflict
> with each other, effectively "stealing each other's wind".
The "reason" is far simpler than that. People stick with things that
work, and windmills have worked for over 600 years. "Nobody ever got
fired for choosing IBM", and no engineer ever got blamed for a
non-working windmill by sticking with props and vanes. Unfortunately
nothing new ever got discovered by disguising dutch windmill vanes as
"modern" airplane propellers. In order to get useful amounts of power
out of prop machines they are now making the props as big as the
Stature of Liberty.
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/used_unused.JPG
Above Left: BLUE AREA shows how much of the SWEPT AREA is actually used
at any instant in time. Above Right: the RED AREA shows the percentage
of wind passing through the swept area which contributes NOTHING to the
power harvest from the wind. The "swept area" is the area inside the
circles that the blades sweep.
It is Time for a
Serious Rethinking of
Wind Power Harvesting!
> > >Wind power operates on the principle that for every doubling of wind
> > >speed, the power is quadrupled. These funnels channel 100% of the
> > >incoming wind into 60% size outlets and they force it into optimal
> > >direction for the sails inside. That means that winds too weak to turn
> > >one of those giants are increased by one or two whole classes in this
> > >design.
> > >There are about 20 states which don't have any wind resources high
> > >enough to turn one of those giant props. Onshore Massachusettes is one
> > >of those states. It is only off shore that any would work of that
> > >inefficient design.
>
> E=mv^2 is the kinetic energy equation. this is for "raw" incoming
> wind. Any attempt to increase the velocity will only lose some of that
> precious available energy.
Some velocity is lost by every wind-power generator. No perfectly
efficient machine exists. I don't even want all the precious energy. I
want only what's possible to harvest and not one watt more than that.
You are focussed on the donut hole and are missing the donut entirely.
It's not about how much you don't get, but how much you do get.
When the wind is below a certain threshhold speed you get nothing at
all with props. You get something by channeling it and constricting it
and focussing it specifically on the sails. When the wind force is too
great they feather the prop turbines to avoid breakage and again you
get nothing, but as you pointed out above (at great force) a pressure
wave is formed, and excess (but not all, not nearly all) wind is
diverted by the tower design. This tower design operates below the
speeds where prop machines start and operates at much higher wind speed
where prop machines are shut down. It also operates in all speeds
between.
Irises close down at hurricane force winds to protect the machinery
(somewhat) from catastrophic forces -- what do you do with Prop
Generators? Each horizontal level is a seperate generator, which can be
shut down indivifdually for repairs or maintenance. Closing the Irises
is all you have to do to shup off any level.
Too bad, "bill", Creation Science loses to Real Science again.
bill
> > > >than 60% efficient because that's how much of the sweep area is
> > > >intersected by the vane-guides at any one instant.
> > > i'm just guessing that neither will happen.
> > You can stop guessing. There is NO chance of this design working.
> > What will happen is that a high pressure area will form on the
> > upwind side, forcing air to flow AROUND the tower rather than into it,
> THANK YOU. I wondered why there is NEVER a draft or breeze comes into a
> building from an opened door or window. I asked the pastor at the
> Creation Science class, but he just said that Noah's Ark doesn't have
> any windows and he would flunk me if I asked non-biblical-based
> questions in science class again.
In proportion to how much air would flow through the *total* area
of the house if there were no house there? miniscule.
> It's a good thing that air particles are so smart and know how to see
> obstacles ahead of them. It shows real intelligence on their part. Not
> only that. They have such nice manners, all cooperatively agreeing to
> step aside to make room for those particles that might actually hit
> something -- it's like they have radar or something. Too bad water is
> not so smart as air. AS A FLUID IT FLOWS RIGHT INTO A PATH OF LEAST
> RESISTENCE, but smart air can duck right around it. That's why
> waterwheels work but nobody has ever built an operating windmill.
If you knew anything at all, you would know that in a compressible
fluid, there is a pressure gradient over significant distances, and
that these pressure gradients alter the path of least resistance.
working windmills, unlike yours take advantage of these gradients by
using them to turn vanes, rather than redirecting the air flow away
from the generation aparatus.
> I guess this is why no windmills work and they are all some crazy hoax
> put on by leftist socialists. As you proved with faultless logic, wind
> meeting an obstruction will form a pressure wave and flow around
> obstacles.
Windmills work great, yours just isn't one.
> > and since bernouli's effect will then take hold, you will lose almost
> > all of the incoming wind to the low-pressure flow around the front of
> > the tower.
> That smart air with radar isn't fooled for one minute by fancy-smancy
> designs. No self-respecting air would ever enter into a tunnel without
> knowing first what's on the other side. Like George Bush says "Always
> have an exit-strategy before you invade someplace". (That is, George
> H.W. Bush, 1991)
VERY good, if there is no way for air to leave, none will come in.
fairly basic, but I see you are learning.
> http://www.aeronautics.ws/optimization.html
> "... Duplicating Bernoulli's Experiment with Variations
> ... We constructed 8 standpipes of varying diameters and a removable
> venturi we could place on the end of water flow release pipe F.
>
> Standpipes 1, 2, 5 and 8 were 1/8" inside diameter.
> Standpipes 3 and 6 were 3/16" inside diameter.
> Standpipes 4 and 7 were 3/8" inside diameter.
> Standpipes of varing diameters ID's proved the test results were not
> influenced by large or small diameter standpipes. ...
> THEY DID BERNOULLI'S EXPERIMENT. HAVE YOU?
> http://www.aeronautics.ws/blunders.html
of course they were not influenced by pipe diameter, the standpipe
is a cross section across which pressure is applied, and since psi are
the units of pressure, the diameter will have no effect.
> > There is a reason that in all useable designs for wind generation,
> > the vanes are directly exposed to the wind. With the large open
> > designs, they are taking advantage of the fact that the aerodynamics
> > work best when you have a free flow of air across the vanes. that's
> > why the vanes must be far enough apart so that they do not conflict
> > with each other, effectively "stealing each other's wind".
>
> The "reason" is far simpler than that. People stick with things that
> work, and windmills have worked for over 600 years. "Nobody ever got
> fired for choosing IBM", and no engineer ever got blamed for a
> non-working windmill by sticking with props and vanes. Unfortunately
> nothing new ever got discovered by disguising dutch windmill vanes as
> "modern" airplane propellers. In order to get useful amounts of power
> out of prop machines they are now making the props as big as the
> Stature of Liberty.
sorry, that dog won't hunt. thousands of other designs have been
tried, and failed. yours is too stupid to contemplate.
> > > >Wind power operates on the principle that for every doubling of wind
> > > >speed, the power is quadrupled. These funnels channel 100% of the
> > > >incoming wind into 60% size outlets and they force it into optimal
> > > >direction for the sails inside. That means that winds too weak to turn
> > > >one of those giants are increased by one or two whole classes in this
> > > >design.
> > > >There are about 20 states which don't have any wind resources high
> > > >enough to turn one of those giant props. Onshore Massachusettes is one
> > > >of those states. It is only off shore that any would work of that
> > > >inefficient design.
> >
> > E=mv^2 is the kinetic energy equation. this is for "raw" incoming
> > wind. Any attempt to increase the velocity will only lose some of that
> > precious available energy.
> Some velocity is lost by every wind-power generator. No perfectly
> efficient machine exists. I don't even want all the precious energy. I
> want only what's possible to harvest and not one watt more than that.
> You are focussed on the donut hole and are missing the donut entirely.
> It's not about how much you don't get, but how much you do get.
What you will get will be 1% efficiency, and it will be the most
expensive failure in wind generation history.
> When the wind is below a certain threshhold speed you get nothing at
> all with props. You get something by channeling it and constricting it
> and focussing it specifically on the sails. When the wind force is too
> great they feather the prop turbines to avoid breakage and again you
> get nothing, but as you pointed out above (at great force) a pressure
> wave is formed, and excess (but not all, not nearly all) wind is
> diverted by the tower design. This tower design operates below the
> speeds where prop machines start and operates at much higher wind speed
> where prop machines are shut down. It also operates in all speeds
> between.
Have you prototyped it? have you modelled it with comperssible
flow software?
I thought not. you have a stupid idea that won't work. give it
up.
> Irises close down at hurricane force winds to protect the machinery
> (somewhat) from catastrophic forces -- what do you do with Prop
> Generators? Each horizontal level is a seperate generator, which can be
> shut down indivifdually for repairs or maintenance. Closing the Irises
> is all you have to do to shup off any level.
at a cost of $100/iris. great plan.
bill
> a convertable going 25 miles per hour or higher <snicker>. Is that the
> friction you mean?
in fact that is exactly what I mean. The pressure front from your
face redirects the wind around it. thus you do not get a friction burn
because most of the wind is felt as pressur rather than as air flow
against a stationary object
> Or is the turbulence losses like when another fluid is put through a
> funnel-shaped opening in hydro-electric dams <snicker>. Is that the
> pressure-induced turbulance that cause no power to ever get generated
> by fluids passing through constrictions <guffaw>???
comparing a non-compressible fluid under hydro-static pressure to
a compressible flow with a velocity head is dumb even for you.
> > > 100% of the wind entering into the building meets the hemi-torus sail
> > > assembly, which is made of unitary construction for strength in gale
> > > situaltions, but made of space-age composites for lightness.
> > >
> > > In propeller turbines only about 6% of the wind ever impacts a blade.
> > > This is a 10x improvement over propellers.
> >
> > so what you have here is basically, a big funnel (inefficient from
> > the start when dealing with compressible gasses) leading into "trust
> > me, it's efficient". I admit that it is possible that you have solved
> > the savonius inefficiency, but only at the expense of 10 times the
> > inefficiency before the wind even touches a blade.
>
> "Trust Me" says the Creation Scientist "
IE you.
> I guess this is why fan-jets and scramjets are against the laws of
> "Fisiks" in your universe. By the way, what color is the sky in your
> world?
scramjets and ramjets operate on the principle that air flow above
mach 1 is modelled as a non-compressible fluid. doesn't apply here.
> > Do you even have the first idea of construction cost estimating??
> > What you have there is a VASTLY more complex, heavy, and difficult to
> > manufacture and install device than a simple tower with a prefabbed
> > nacelle and propellor. It is an absolutely ludicrous idea to think
>
> The tower weighs how much? and the steel tower with propellers and
> nacelle weighs how much? Where did you get your numbers -- did god
> whisper in your ears or was it those other voices nobody else can
> hear???
Do you think at all??? to get a comparable swept area with a
solid circular face instead of a light-weight truss with composite
vanes you will need a significant multiple of the weight.
> > that local crews will be able to assemble and install multi-story,
> > mag-lev space-age composite white elephants.
>
> Why not? Ordinary human beings make maglev transportation systems in
> advanced civilizations, and ride on them. IT might take a few decades
> or centuries before Americans ever see one, unless they go to Europe or
> Asia, that is.
With specialized crews that move from continent to continent at
great cost.
go back to school, whatever they tried to teach you rolled right
off.
Scott Nudds
Scott Nudds wrote:
> > Sorry. Bernouli's effect doesn't apply here, Bernouli's theorem only
> > applies in closed pipes and only when the fluids moving are
incmpressable.
"bill" wrote
> AAAANNNNTT! WRONG ANSWER, bernouli's effect applies anywhere
> where there is a moving fluid.
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/Bernoulli.html
Many people think so, but they are wrong. Outside of an enclosed pipe
system, Bernouli's theorem doesn't apply.
It's easy enough to see why. Consider a cylindar of fluid which is
partitioned into equal halves upper and lower with a thin circular layer of
plastic separating the upper and lower halves.
Now consider that in the upper half the fluid is spinning. while the lower
half is stationary.
Bernouli's theorem would hold that because of the motion of the upper layer
of fluid, the circular disk should experience an upward force as the force
downward is reduced by Bernouli.
Yet if an observer were spinning along with the upper fluid, they would see
the plastic disk experience a downward force.
Now we have a contradiction that can only be resolved in 1 way. The
abandonment of Berniouli's theorem as it applies to open systems, and lift
in particular.
The misapplication of Bernouli's theorem to a host of fluid flow problems is
epidemic, and errors in standard high school texts are common.
This is what you get when people are trained to regurgitate science.
My advice is to think.