Generator tower - Page 23

 

wrote:


Unfortunately, *you* are not accredited for anything AFAIK, and even
your membership in the human race would require confirmation before it
would accepted by most readers. So the issue of lack-of-accreditation
is cancelled out, and we are left to compare two competing opinions.
One is from Paul Gipe and the NREL, and based on their substantial
efforts and expertise. Both reached nearly identical and logical
conclusions. The competing opinion is illogical, directly contradicts
the other two, and not surprisingly is based solely on the as-usual
odd-man-out contrariness of one self-titled "consultant" who doesn't
even own a wind turbine.


That's easier for you than admitting to yet another blunder I suppose.
But you may have noticed that while you've been wasting your time once
again denying the undeniable and further crippling your credibility in
the process, others have accepted the facts and used them to further
sensible discussion.


You might take your own advice. The performance of the AirX is
years-old news, having been discussed at length many times on the
AWEA-Wind-Home group. The performance penalty of the braking has even
been acknowledged by a frequent contributor - one Andy Kruse, CEO of
SWWP. I'm sure you'd like to straighten out *his* misconceptions.
Given that you're a glutton for punishment, you could post your claims
over there as well and become a laughing stock in yet another venue.

Wayne

 



wmbjk wrote:

Another direct hit on Wayne. How can you tell? Because he is foaming at
the mouth again.

Dump his crap.

The nrel was testing for noise. This is what they had to say on the test:

In the period from 14 October 2002 to 16 January 2003, an early
production version of the AIR-X
was installed at the NWTC test site for acoustic noise testing. In
addition to the signals required
for the noise testing, additional instrumentation that allowed power
performance testing in
accordance with IEC 61400-12 [1] was added. The results of that test are
described in this report.

Please note that this test and the test report are not an accredited
power performance test/test
report because parts of the NWTC quality assurance system were not
followed.


As can be seen the power test was not accredited.


The other report by Paul Gipe States that:

The AirX.ABeta004, a preproduction version tested during December 2003,
performs better than previous versions of the AirX. This version meets
the manufacturer's power curve up to about 24 mph where the controller
begins to regulate the turbine.

This is quite a bit different from Wayne's:

No. The AirX's max output comes at about 23 mph because the turbine is
designed to use braking to limit noise.

The Air X is designed to produce a maximum 400W, but because of noise
problems brakes at 24MPH wind speed. It gets nowhere near its max out
put. It does meet the power curve for the wind speed of 24MPH.

The report also says:

At rated wind speed the AirX delivers only 103 W 99 W, and 51 W
respectively, not the 400-525 W advertised. In the worst case, the
AirX.3, the turbine only produces 10% of the advertised instantaneous
power claimed. This is probably a record of some sort.

This information is consistent with data I have collected from sites
with an Air X.

What it comes down to is that if you want a 400W wind gen then you would
do well to stay away from the Air brand.

Wayne can rant and rave all he wants. But what started his little dummy
spit was my asking the OP the question:


"Do you have enough wind to make it worth the time and money?"

So perhaps someone should buy Wayne a box of tissues so he can wipe the
foam from his mouth before somebody puts him down as a rabid dog.

 

Can we stop talking about Wayne here and stick with real information?

Who else cares about the troll boy?



wmbjk wrote:

followed.

Another direct hit on Wayne. How can you tell? Because he is foaming at
the mouth again.

Dump his crap.

The nrel was testing for noise. This is what they had to say on the test:

In the period from 14 October 2002 to 16 January 2003, an early
production version of the AIR-X
was installed at the NWTC test site for acoustic noise testing. In
addition to the signals required
for the noise testing, additional instrumentation that allowed power
performance testing in
accordance with IEC 61400-12 [1] was added. The results of that test are
described in this report.

Please note that this test and the test report are not an accredited
power performance test/test
report because parts of the NWTC quality assurance system were not
followed.


As can be seen the power test was not accredited.


The other report by Paul Gipe States that:

The AirX.ABeta004, a preproduction version tested during December 2003,
performs better than previous versions of the AirX. This version meets
the manufacturer's power curve up to about 24 mph where the controller
begins to regulate the turbine.

This is quite a bit different from Wayne's:

No. The AirX's max output comes at about 23 mph because the turbine is
designed to use braking to limit noise.

The Air X is designed to produce a maximum 400W, but because of noise
problems brakes at 24MPH wind speed. It gets nowhere near its max out
put. It does meet the power curve for the wind speed of 24MPH.

The report also says:

At rated wind speed the AirX delivers only 103 W 99 W, and 51 W
respectively, not the 400-525 W advertised. In the worst case, the
AirX.3, the turbine only produces 10% of the advertised instantaneous
power claimed. This is probably a record of some sort.

This information is consistent with data I have collected from sites
with an Air X.

What it comes down to is that if you want a 400W wind gen then you would
do well to stay away from the Air brand.

Wayne can rant and rave all he wants. But what started his little dummy
spit was my asking the OP the question:


"Do you have enough wind to make it worth the time and money?"

So perhaps someone should buy Wayne a box of tissues so he can wipe the
foam from his mouth before somebody puts him down as a rabid dog.