I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind telling me the official optimum
driveshaft angle and rotor spacing for best energy capture? I mean I
have a pretty good handle on it from building so many, but I wouldn't
mind knowing the "correct" answer from someone who really knows.
Someone who can really work math problems. If you need to include
optimizing the airfoils for power when clean, power when dirty, and
noise, Reynolds number, that would be good too, and maybe recommend a
type of blade? And I guess include how the above parameters might
change over various types of blades? Could you model the furling
response in various degrees and types of turbulence? That will save
me building them. I am glad you came along, as this is gonna save me a
lot of work! :)
No amount of formulas to study a single rotor could get you to
multiple rotors, as one example of an innovation, and the same is true
of designing a pitching blade mechanism or any other modification.
For that you have to step out of the classroom and engage your organic
brain. Then later it can be partially analyzed in a classroom using
math, as a substitute for the real-world experience that the classroom
doesn't have the budget for, or can't be bothered with.
The real dynamic of a classroom is being relegated to paper models in
lieu of real activity with a real budget. It is about keeping
students safe and harmless sitting in a concrete government-sponsored
facility and feeding them the lies that they are getting smarter and
smarter while life is happening on the outside and passing them by.
Universities can easily become little more than voluntary
incarceration based on complementing one's intelligence. As long as
one is sitting in a chair in silence, one will be prevented from
moving forward, and as long as someone can convince you that you need
to do more math problems instead of building anything, the longer they
can render you ineffective. My opinion. :)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, David Simms
>Believe it or not, it is possible to effectively model these forces
and moments on a computer and, having done so, I should emphasize that
that's the way it has to be.
> With each system; diameter of turbine, wind speed rating, etc. there
is a sweet spot where all of the factors work in concert, enabling the
turbine to sideface the correct amount while maintaining nearly full
output. If you don't find the sweet spot, you'll lose output because
the turbine turns too far out of the wind. Unless a particular system
is modelled, it'll probably furl and save itself but it won't perform
optimally. This is probably ok, for most folks, because those strong
winds are quite improbable anyway.
> I find it a bit presumptuous that the required mathematics seems to
get pushed aside in favour of recipes that are proclaimed like one
size of shoe being able to fit everyone. Effective design is mathematical.
> Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark
your favourite sites. Download it now at
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]