Posted by ghio on November 2, 2009, 9:17 am
On Nov 2, 9:51am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
> wrote:
> >> > Cool! You may want to clarify what "blade length" means though. Does this
> >> > include my 1.78m dia hub?
> >> From the tip of the blade to the center of the hub.
> >Seems to me, that as wind acts on the surface area of the blade, the
> >swept area is determined by the length of the blade from tip to base
> >and does not include the hub. The hub does not, in fact, contribute
> >any energy.
> So far, so good!
> > Hmm, it would seem that including an area that does not
> >add energy may render the calculation inaccurate.
> Dang, if only you'd included some of your infamous "maths" to support
> your hypothesis. :-(
> Let's see, 8" hub, 10' rotor, hub area accounts for .44% of the swept
> area. Which would change the 15mph production from say 400W, to
> 398.2W. Thank goodness readers have a resident ghinius to protect us
> from such egregious errors!
> >While a hub that has a diameter of 150mm would cause only a small
> >error, a hub that has a diameter of 1.78m would render the
> >calculation, as written, quite unreliable.
> Ah, so we need to use Gymmy Bob's fictional turbine to suffer any
> meaningful error! Then why not post a link to a typical home power
> turbine with a 6' hub? How many of those do you own?
> >What do you say Steve? Is the swept area the area swept by the blades?
> >How much energy is added by the area swept by the hub? Is this just a
> >case of a shopping list posing as a design?
> All we have here are you and Gymmy Bob the tag-team phonies, inventing
> fault for your own brain-dead reasons. Same-old same-old, not a single
> useful contribution from either of you.
> Wayne
Good lad wayne, except the questions were asked of Steve. It seems
that your puppy has the back bone of a jellyfish.
Question;
> Cool! You may want to clarify what "blade length" means though. Does this
> include my 1.78m dia hub?
Steve's answer;
From the tip of the blade to the center of the hub.
The answer is indicative of Steve's understanding of the formula in
question. This seems to be none at all. That you echo Steve's answer
tars you with the same brush. But then Steve thinks a shopping list is
a system design and you don't have a clue what your loads are, what
your system produces, let alone what it uses. The one simple question
and Steve's answer, as well as your slovenly thinking in his defense,
well, between the two of you, you couldn't manage a granny knot on
your boots.
It is patently obvious that the formula has a narrow use and does
introduce an error. Small or large an error is an error. Best to stick
to the true swept area.
The swept area is comprised of useful blade surface. Many blades may
have as little as 2/3 useful surface exposed to the wind with the
shape near the base becoming less effective.
No, the formula is the one used by manufacturers to pad the output
numbers to sell punters like you, who don't know any better, a wind
generator that will only really work in gale force winds. As a blanket
formula it leaves a lot to be desired.
As for a home energy wind generator with a large hub in relation to
blade length, I know of one, it is situated on the Calder Hy. at the
edge of Melbourne.
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on November 2, 2009, 12:45 am
>> Cool! You may want to clarify what "blade length" means though. Does this
>> include my 1.78m dia hub?
>From the tip of the blade to the center of the hub.
>Makes sense. Perhaps you could add a note to your calculator?
Take another look at the calculator, nitwit. On the left side of the
page, it clearly says "Blade Length: Blade length is also the radius,
or ½ of the diameter of the swept area". How lame can you be to
advertise that you didn't see that?
Wayne
Posted by Michael B on November 4, 2009, 3:49 am
Have you considered a large 'drag' style unit?
More like a Savonius style?
> some scary high outputs. I live on a mountain, with wind, and the damn
> thing scares me. LOL
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on November 4, 2009, 2:12 pm
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:49:44 -0800 (PST), Michael B
>> some scary high outputs. I live on a mountain, with wind, and the damn
>> thing scares me. LOL
>Have you considered a large 'drag' style unit?
>More like a Savonius style?
He says it's 10' in diameter, rated at 1500W <snorf> and has a 6' hub!
Ask him for a picture of it or his mountain. He's a crackpot
nym-shifter, and his problems have nothing to do with high winds, or
turbine design.
Wayne
Posted by ghio on November 4, 2009, 8:54 pm
On Nov 5, 1:12am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:49:44 -0800 (PST), Michael B
> >> some scary high outputs. I live on a mountain, with wind, and the damn
> >> thing scares me. LOL
> >Have you considered a large 'drag' style unit?
> >More like a Savonius style?
> He says it's 10' in diameter, rated at 1500W <snorf> and has a 6' hub!
> Ask him for a picture of it or his mountain. He's a crackpot
> nym-shifter, and his problems have nothing to do with high winds, or
> turbine design.
> Wayne
This from a guy that has never designed a system in his life, thinks
that swept area includes the hub area and all blades are exactly the
same and are measured from the tip of the blade to the center of the
hub.
He claims to have two wind generators, one may not be working, but he
is not sure and the other has full output if it is turning,
irregardless of actual wind speed. He has never heard of the Beaufort
wind scale. If you are looking at wind generators you need to know
what the wind speeds really mean.
He has no idea what his system uses or produces, no idea what his
loads are and despite living in one of the sunniest place you can find
still needs more than 50 hours of charging from a petrol charger at,
his claim, 80A.
He also claims to have built a house. He hired a bunch of contractors
to build it for him.
The man is a walking fantasy.
Oh yeah, be sure to visit his dummy spit site at
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm . A great insight into
the child like mind of wayne.
> >> > Cool! You may want to clarify what "blade length" means though. Does this
> >> > include my 1.78m dia hub?
> >> From the tip of the blade to the center of the hub.
> >Seems to me, that as wind acts on the surface area of the blade, the
> >swept area is determined by the length of the blade from tip to base
> >and does not include the hub. The hub does not, in fact, contribute
> >any energy.
> So far, so good!
> > Hmm, it would seem that including an area that does not
> >add energy may render the calculation inaccurate.
> Dang, if only you'd included some of your infamous "maths" to support
> your hypothesis. :-(
> Let's see, 8" hub, 10' rotor, hub area accounts for .44% of the swept
> area. Which would change the 15mph production from say 400W, to
> 398.2W. Thank goodness readers have a resident ghinius to protect us
> from such egregious errors!
> >While a hub that has a diameter of 150mm would cause only a small
> >error, a hub that has a diameter of 1.78m would render the
> >calculation, as written, quite unreliable.
> Ah, so we need to use Gymmy Bob's fictional turbine to suffer any
> meaningful error! Then why not post a link to a typical home power
> turbine with a 6' hub? How many of those do you own?
> >What do you say Steve? Is the swept area the area swept by the blades?
> >How much energy is added by the area swept by the hub? Is this just a
> >case of a shopping list posing as a design?
> All we have here are you and Gymmy Bob the tag-team phonies, inventing
> fault for your own brain-dead reasons. Same-old same-old, not a single
> useful contribution from either of you.
> Wayne