Who is going to install something that doesn’t work because it’s quite?

Here’s something to consider.  Wind turbines may have no place in urban areas.  Urban winds are not smooth and steady due to the infrastructure we place there.  The good, really usable wind is up high, along ridge lines, offshore.

Solar, waste heat recovery – those we can install in urban areas.  

Thing is, “design science” is not data. You’re making claims based on words, not data.

I think you know from previous posts that I will probably never be in a position to furnish the data you demand, which is why you ask for it. A professor at a university school of engineering said to me, “I love ideas that challenge the orthodoxy.” but she was denied any funds to help me prototype a design.

The Chief Designer, Dynamics, at a world-class motorsport concern (WRC & F1) was taken aback when shown the same proof-of-concept model, but he soon regained his composure and invented several implausible reasons for not believing the evidence of his own eyes. He asked me to pay £5k to ‘research’ the data. The evidence was the same – the attitude of mind couldn’t be more different.

“Please don’t make statements such as – Once people pay attention to design science, HAWTs will be dead in the water.” 

Why not? It’s my right to free speech. That’s why we’re here isn’t it? My ideas would only challenge the orthodoxy if they’re a plausible alternative. If there is no data, you can dismiss my comments as wild speculation, if that makes you feel better. If there was data, wouldn’t you seek to discredit it anyway?

It’s common for companies to send their product to independent labs when their own data might not be readily accepted.  These folks aren’t even furninshing data that they have gathered aside from saying “we saw it turning around in the wind”.

Please don’t make statements such as ” Once people pay attention to design science, HAWTs will be dead in the water.” unless you can bring the data.

Where is your data that these turbines work “quite well”?

The fact that they can be seen to spin when the wind blows does not rise the level of useful data.

http://www.mccamley.com/

which isn’t a whirligig, as you can see.

There’s no shortage of articles where people make optimistic claims for their new products. It’s called marketing. But, as with many other projects, these guys work in partnership with a university, which helps to keep them honest. Why be intolerant of just this article Bob?

These turbines are specifically designed for the urban environment, where they seem to work quite well – horses for courses. If they don’t give a decent return they won’t sell.

How about no more articles on these things unless they include third party testing data which proves that they actually generate electricity at a reasonable cost?

” (S)tarts generating electricity at a low wind speed of 1.8 metres per second (4 mph, or 3.5 knots)” is as meaningless as that article that talked about chairs that generate electricity from harvested butt heat.
 

http://www.quietrevolution.com/qr5-turbine.htm

More recently:-

“UK installer Sitec has already purchased 100 models, and Ward said that the company’s factory at Pembroke Dock in Wales is “ramping up production” prior to the technology’s full release, rising from nine turbines a month to 30.”

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2120234/quietrevolution-ready-noise-turbine

Ward admitted that, like many start-ups, the business is in a “financially tight” position, despite support from German energy giant RWE, which bought a £6m stake in the company in 2008.

“If you’re trying to attract investors into the market, it’s very difficult when the goalposts keep moving. They’re silly buggers. The government has these carbon targets to meet and here’s an industry trying to help them … but we can’t get anything done,” he said.

Slow revolution ain’t it. The neoliberal nuts say that ‘markets’ will deliver the best solutions. Gimme a break! Markets are reactive. They can’t and never should determine the future.

Now consider this; a paradigm shift in the method of ‘power regulation’ would capture the energy in high wind speeds, instead of letting it go to waste. Once people pay attention to design science, HAWTs will be dead in the water.