tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post3423864190030206754..comments2024-03-09T04:13:55.185-06:00Comments on Open PRT specification project: 70> Speaking of....Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-46174783787903719882010-01-26T20:31:55.339-06:002010-01-26T20:31:55.339-06:00Dan The Blogger Responds –
Hi afransen, I have a t...Dan The Blogger Responds –<br />Hi afransen, I have a tendency to throw stuff out there, even stuff I know won’t (and probably shouldn’t) stick. It’s “Dan’s 16th rule of engineering.” (post 38) <br />I have a tendency to alternate between very carefully considered, practical, design options and whimsical imaginings. It’s all part of the creative process, and my sense of humor. I was dreaming vertical axis, probably out in the plains somewhere, maybe circa 2050. That last sentence of that post was meant as a joke. Sort of…<br /><br />Well hello, Bengt. Good to hear from you. I thought I saw a cross between the "Convenient Future" video and your site’s illustrations. That elevator technique should have been a dead giveaway to the Bubbles and Beams connection. <br />The question of fewer supports and suspension technology is something I want to post about soon. Those masts he shows are pretty enormous, I must say. On the other hand, Anderson’s experiences with the American cities led him to conclude that it was worth the extra expense of using round tube trusses, just to get the smallest profile and longest span. My own sense is that, in general, replacing compression components with tension components is usually a good thing. (Bucky Fuller was my childhood hero) I do, however, share your view that tall towers are a drawback. A compromise system might give the best of both worlds. <br /><br />Also, that address is dead, but change “.se” to “.com” and it works. I had never explored that link very deeply, because of the great big vehicles and cartoon-like graphics. I really should have. There is a wealth of good ideas to be found. It explores a lot more technical aspects than one might think. They even promote open standards. <br /><br />Thanks for that link, akauppi. I was glad to see some performance data on that style and size range. I could use something like those at my cabin. As far as the wind speed thing, although the one pictured isn’t, in reality, all that big, the laws of fluid mechanics still apply. Reasonably streamlined objects placed in a wind of a given speed will indeed increase the wind speed around them by making the wind travel further in the same amount of time. (also decreasing air pressure, by Bernoulli’s principle) With very big objects like mountains or buildings, the effect can be dramatic. Add to that the exponential increases in power from just incremental wind speed improvements, and you have an effect that I thought was worth mentioning…<br /><br />Your basic point stands, though. The principle advantage of the inflatable design is to catch wind at a higher altitude. It is also true that the advantage of altitude dwarfs the fluid dynamics advantage. To those readers out there who have never considered this stuff, a main problem and expense with wind power is getting high enough to get to a stiff and steady breeze. I just get carried away sometimes with my 16th rule, and start thinking really, really big. Just wait ‘till I reveal my ultra-giant inflatable ocean-floor tethered, wind-powered, submersed-bladder hydrogen production facility!Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-25054173517581914232010-01-26T10:45:50.297-06:002010-01-26T10:45:50.297-06:00A little correction to you, Dan: :)
"So big...A little correction to you, Dan: :)<br /><br />"So big they increase wind speed just by forcing air to move around their shear size."<br /><br />Actually, the floating wind generators you have the pic of are supposed to be lifted so high up that they reach a layer of very powerful winds. Their size does not really have anything to do with that - only needed to lift them up there.... (must go!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-46038189179322293862010-01-26T10:36:27.019-06:002010-01-26T10:36:27.019-06:00Vertical axis turbines are starting to be used her...Vertical axis turbines are starting to be used here (Finland) in some mobile telecom poles.<br /><br />http://www.windside.com/products.html<br /><br />I believe this company is behind the whole idea from the 1920's. To me, these don't seem ugly at all. And they're rather quiet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-64063528892847721082010-01-26T03:36:02.086-06:002010-01-26T03:36:02.086-06:00The picture is not by Beamways, but by Hans Kylber...The picture is not by Beamways, but by Hans Kylberg, the maker of the Bubbles and Beams videos. He died of cancer last year. He held the idea that using fewer towers and suspension bridge technology would be a good idea. Personally I think that the height of the towers would prevent their use in many situations.<br /><br />Hans made the first images of the Beamways system and also some for the FlyWay system at www.swedetrack.seBengt Gustafssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09713334872197066961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-35081382898657960872010-01-25T23:34:55.260-06:002010-01-25T23:34:55.260-06:00I'm not sure how suitable cable-stayed bridge ...I'm not sure how suitable cable-stayed bridge piers would be for wind turbines, unless you mean vertical axis turbines. Horizontal axis turbines obviously need to face the wind, which means the turbine would have to be at least a blade's length above the cables.<br /><br />I wouldn't use vertical axis wind turbines in cities. They are pretty ugly. Also, most designs need to be jump-started, requiring a motor.Andrew Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182432042622426328noreply@blogger.com