Tower options for Wind Generator? - Page 3

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

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:

 

wrote:


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.


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