http://cleantechnica.com/2009/02/11/update-ufo-not-responsible-for-uk-wind-turbine-wreckage/ Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More. Sat, 26 May 2012 00:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://cleantechnica.com/2009/02/11/update-ufo-not-responsible-for-uk-wind-turbine-wreckage/#comment-5176 tim Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:32:20 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2151#comment-5176 Did you see the Hutchinson(sp) Effect in the video "Tesla: the Race to Zero Point Energy"? Watch what happens to the various materials when this inventor (in Canada) exposes them to the waves of energy. It's possible that energies from a UFO craft could cause materials to fatigue. A friend of mind witnessed the 'take off' of a craft over a lake in California and simultaneously, a huge branch of a tree cracked and broke off nearly injuring or killing a camper. Did you see the Hutchinson(sp) Effect in the video “Tesla: the Race to Zero Point Energy”? Watch what happens to the various materials when this inventor (in Canada) exposes them to the waves of energy. It’s possible that energies from a UFO craft could cause materials to fatigue. A friend of mind witnessed the ‘take off’ of a craft over a lake in California and simultaneously, a huge branch of a tree cracked and broke off nearly injuring or killing a camper.

]]> http://cleantechnica.com/2009/02/11/update-ufo-not-responsible-for-uk-wind-turbine-wreckage/#comment-5175 PATRICK RYAN Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:56:38 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2151#comment-5175 The damage to the turbine could not have been caused by metal fatigue to bolts. Metal fatigue would indeed cause a blade to become loose and fly off, however, there is no way that the falling blade could bend the adjacent blade to the degree shown in the existing close up photographs of the damage. A falling blade will fall to the ground, or, if the blades are rotating in the wind, the blade will be projected away from the main body of the turbine before crashing to the earth. However, a falling blade could not account for the extreme bending damage shown in the photograph on the blade positioned next to the missing one. This could only have resulted from considerable force being applied to the blade on or around the middle section along its length, and this damage seems to have been done while the blades were in a fixed, static position. There are also long scratching marks down the length of the bent blade. These are the result of a rough surface being dragged along its length. The damage shown in the close up photographs was definitely caused by an aerial object coming into contact with the turbine.However, I would expect the company that make them to downplay the incident and release a statement saying something along the lines of metal fatigue. The last thing any respectable business needs is a ufo controversy around its neck. It should be quite obvious to anyone involved in the engineering game, that there is more than metal fatigue going on in those pictures alone. The damage to the turbine could not have been caused by metal fatigue to bolts. Metal fatigue would indeed cause a blade to become loose and fly off, however, there is no way that the falling blade could bend the adjacent blade to the degree shown in the existing close up photographs of the damage. A falling blade will fall to the ground, or, if the blades are rotating in the wind, the blade will be projected away from the main body of the turbine before crashing to the earth. However, a falling blade could not account for the extreme bending damage shown in the photograph on the blade positioned next to the missing one. This could only have resulted from considerable force being applied to the blade on or around the middle section along its length, and this damage seems to have been done while the blades were in a fixed, static position. There are also long scratching marks down the length of the bent blade. These are the result of a rough surface being dragged along its length. The damage shown in the close up photographs was definitely caused by an aerial object coming into contact with the turbine.However, I would expect the company that make them to downplay the incident and release a statement saying something along the lines of metal fatigue. The last thing any respectable business needs is a ufo controversy around its neck. It should be quite obvious to anyone involved in the engineering game, that there is more than metal fatigue going on in those pictures alone.

]]> http://cleantechnica.com/2009/02/11/update-ufo-not-responsible-for-uk-wind-turbine-wreckage/#comment-22259 PATRICK RYAN Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:56:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2151#comment-22259 The damage to the turbine could not have been caused by metal fatigue to bolts. Metal fatigue would indeed cause a blade to become loose and fly off, however, there is no way that the falling blade could bend the adjacent blade to the degree shown in the existing close up photographs of the damage. A falling blade will fall to the ground, or, if the blades are rotating in the wind, the blade will be projected away from the main body of the turbine before crashing to the earth. However, a falling blade could not account for the extreme bending damage shown in the photograph on the blade positioned next to the missing one. This could only have resulted from considerable force being applied to the blade on or around the middle section along its length, and this damage seems to have been done while the blades were in a fixed, static position. There are also long scratching marks down the length of the bent blade. These are the result of a rough surface being dragged along its length. The damage shown in the close up photographs was definitely caused by an aerial object coming into contact with the turbine.However, I would expect the company that make them to downplay the incident and release a statement saying something along the lines of metal fatigue. The last thing any respectable business needs is a ufo controversy around its neck. It should be quite obvious to anyone involved in the engineering game, that there is more than metal fatigue going on in those pictures alone. The damage to the turbine could not have been caused by metal fatigue to bolts. Metal fatigue would indeed cause a blade to become loose and fly off, however, there is no way that the falling blade could bend the adjacent blade to the degree shown in the existing close up photographs of the damage. A falling blade will fall to the ground, or, if the blades are rotating in the wind, the blade will be projected away from the main body of the turbine before crashing to the earth. However, a falling blade could not account for the extreme bending damage shown in the photograph on the blade positioned next to the missing one. This could only have resulted from considerable force being applied to the blade on or around the middle section along its length, and this damage seems to have been done while the blades were in a fixed, static position. There are also long scratching marks down the length of the bent blade. These are the result of a rough surface being dragged along its length. The damage shown in the close up photographs was definitely caused by an aerial object coming into contact with the turbine.However, I would expect the company that make them to downplay the incident and release a statement saying something along the lines of metal fatigue. The last thing any respectable business needs is a ufo controversy around its neck. It should be quite obvious to anyone involved in the engineering game, that there is more than metal fatigue going on in those pictures alone.

]]>