[Steve Firth]

Safe? Not Noisy?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

[ARWadworth]

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

Safe? Not Noisy?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

Adam

[Andy Burns[_3_]]

On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ...

[ARWadworth]

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ..

A deliberate ploy for the camera then?

[Andy Hall]

On 2008-02-24 13:36:44 +0000, (Steve Firth) said:


Safe? Not Noisy?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

One down. How many more to go?

[Andy Hall]

On 2008-02-24 14:59:53 +0000, Andy Burns said:

On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ...

So at the point when more energy can be extracted from the elements,
the thing can't perform?

In too little wind, as in on people's houses, they are inadequate, and
in higher winds they have to be shut down in case they break?

Sounds like alternative energy's answer to Chernobyl.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Andy Burns wrote:
On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ...

Until the feathering mechanism goes wrong.

Fortinately nuclear power stations are built to much higher standards of
safety.;-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

ARWadworth wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ..

A deliberate ploy for the camera then?

A bloody expensive and dangerous one if it was.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-02-24 14:59:53 +0000, Andy Burns
said:

On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ...

So at the point when more energy can be extracted from the elements, the
thing can't perform?

In too little wind, as in on people's houses, they are inadequate, and
in higher winds they have to be shut down in case they break?

Sounds like alternative energy's answer to Chernobyl.



Exactly.

They only produce their rated output in a 'stiff breeze' IIRC.

The average power output for te reasins given is one sixth of that.

Very wasteful of copper and constructional materials, and the energy
used to make them.

[Steve Firth]

ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

Safe? Not Noisy?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

I think the explosion may have contributed to that.

[geoff]

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Andy Burns wrote:
On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?
It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ...

Until the feathering mechanism goes wrong.

Fortinately nuclear power stations are built to much higher standards
of safety.;-)

Maybe the webbed footed one might check out the editorial from last
months NS - expediency over safety

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-editorial-don
t-mess-with-nuclear-safety.html

unless of course he thinks it's left wing propaganda

ah what's this ?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...70b1f37-7efe-4
6c1-a165-8b0efd4dfcaa&k=22708

same story ...



--
geoff

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (Steve Firth)
saying something like:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

I think the explosion may have contributed to that.

Stop motion revealed a blade split first, very rapidly followed by
disintegration of the whole assembly. I suppose the rate it was whirling
around meant the slightest failure leading to unbalance would pitch
everything else over the failure limit.
--

Dave

[The Natural Philosopher]

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (Steve Firth)
saying something like:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257
Why did it collapse?
I think the explosion may have contributed to that.

Stop motion revealed a blade split first, very rapidly followed by
disintegration of the whole assembly. I suppose the rate it was whirling
around meant the slightest failure leading to unbalance would pitch
everything else over the failure limit.

That's standard on prop failure. Normally failure near the hub, followed
by blade loss, then complete disintegration as the whole thing shakes
itself to pieces.

By their very nature, windmills are fragile things. Its a bit better in
an aircraft. Smaller and hihger revving, so less effect of unbalance,
and someone in the cockpit who can shut down very fast.

Still In WW2 not a few bombers returned minus a complete engine..


I wouldn't want to live near a wind turbine, tho.

[geoff]

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Andy Burns wrote:
On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?
It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ...

Until the feathering mechanism goes wrong.

Fortinately nuclear power stations are built to much higher standards
of safety.;-)

Maybe the webbed footed one might check out the editorial from last
months NS - expediency over safety

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-editorial-don
t-mess-with-nuclear-safety.html

unless of course he thinks it's left wing propaganda

ah what's this ?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...70b1f37-7efe-4
6c1-a165-8b0efd4dfcaa&k=22708

same story ...

Basically, the head of the Cabadian Nuclear Safety commission, Linda
Keen, closed down a plant where two safety critical back up cooling
pumps were missing in a "clear breach of safety".

Instead of prioritising installing these pumps, the reactor was reopened
regardless and fired Keen

Higher standards of safety ?

[The Natural Philosopher]

geoff wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Andy Burns wrote:
On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?
It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ...

Until the feathering mechanism goes wrong.

Fortinately nuclear power stations are built to much higher standards
of safety.;-)

Maybe the webbed footed one might check out the editorial from last
months NS - expediency over safety

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-editorial-don
t-mess-with-nuclear-safety.html

unless of course he thinks it's left wing propaganda

ah what's this ?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...70b1f37-7efe-4
6c1-a165-8b0efd4dfcaa&k=22708

same story ...

Basically, the head of the Cabadian Nuclear Safety commission, Linda
Keen, closed down a plant where two safety critical back up cooling
pumps were missing in a "clear breach of safety".

Instead of prioritising installing these pumps, the reactor was reopened
regardless and fired Keen

Higher standards of safety ?

Yup. At least there WAS a clear directive to have a backup system in
place, and somebody policing it. Something that seems entirely absent
from windmills.

Of course you wont ever get a clear unbiased story from the New
Scientist/guardian type rags...

The fact remains, the windmill blew up, the nuclear power station did not.

Why? because nuclear power stations these days have to be built to
standards that no other industry has to. If stringent safety systems
were applied to windmills, they would be *totally* uneconomic, instead
of merely 6-10 times as expensive as a nuclear power stations, and no
one could claim their greeny points (like brownie points, but more vomit
colored) for being involved with them..

[ARWadworth]

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

Safe? Not Noisy?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

I think the explosion may have contributed to that.

I saw this video before you posted the link. Just odd that it was being
filmed as it collapsed (not many do) and even odder that you can hear the
windmill after it collapses.

How do you shut a windturbine down after the winds are too strong?

Adam

[Andy Burns[_3_]]

On 25/02/2008 17:55, ARWadworth wrote:

I saw this video before you posted the link. Just odd that it was being
filmed as it collapsed (not many do)

Presumably somebody realised it was going too fast and filmed it
*because* of that, rather than just by chance (perhaps one of the
engineers who was sent to try to shut it down, or someone whose
attention was attracted by the presence of such engineers, who knows?)

and even odder that you can hear
the windmill after it collapses.

Probably a fair bit of momentum in the gearbox/alternator.

Actually just watched it again, I see what you mean, but that just seems
like dodgy editing (due to the slow-mo?) where the video and sound are
way out of sync.

How do you shut a windturbine down after the winds are too strong?

It's a bit too big to shove a stick in the spokes, innit?

[Andy Burns[_3_]]

On 25/02/2008 17:55, ARWadworth wrote:

I saw this video before you posted the link.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105852.html
http://ing.dk/gallerier/96102

[geoff]

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Andy Burns wrote:
On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.uk...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?
It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ...

Until the feathering mechanism goes wrong.

Fortinately nuclear power stations are built to much higher
standards of safety.;-)

Maybe the webbed footed one might check out the editorial from last
months NS - expediency over safety

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-editorial-don
t-mess-with-nuclear-safety.html

unless of course he thinks it's left wing propaganda

ah what's this ?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...70b1f37-7efe-4
6c1-a165-8b0efd4dfcaa&k=22708

same story ...

Basically, the head of the Cabadian Nuclear Safety commission, Linda
Keen, closed down a plant where two safety critical back up cooling
pumps were missing in a "clear breach of safety".
Instead of prioritising installing these pumps, the reactor was
reopened regardless and fired Keen
Higher standards of safety ?

Yup. At least there WAS a clear directive to have a backup system in
place, and somebody policing it. Something that seems entirely absent
from windmills.

Of course you wont ever get a clear unbiased story from the New
Scientist/guardian type rags...

The fact remains, the windmill blew up, the nuclear power station did not.

Why? because nuclear power stations these days have to be built to
standards that no other industry has to. If stringent safety systems
were applied to windmills, they would be *totally* uneconomic, instead
of merely 6-10 times as expensive as a nuclear power stations, and no
one could claim their greeny points (like brownie points, but more
vomit colored) for being involved with them..

It was not built to the standard required by it's operating licence

Such a fault is potentially far more serious than a windmill falling
down

Much more disturbing is the Canadian government's riding roughshod over
this and, instead of prioritising the work needed, fired the
commissioner and reopened the plant

and, especially for you I included one of several more references to
this story


--
geoff

[The Natural Philosopher]

ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

Safe? Not Noisy?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?

I think the explosion may have contributed to that.

I saw this video before you posted the link. Just odd that it was being
filmed as it collapsed (not many do) and even odder that you can hear
the windmill after it collapses.

How do you shut a windturbine down after the winds are too strong?

'Feather' it and point it into wind mainly.
..

Adam

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:32:47 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

I saw this video before you posted the link. Just odd that it was being
filmed as it collapsed (not many do)

Presumably somebody realised it was going too fast and filmed it
*because* of that, rather than just by chance

That is my view. If I saw a wind turbine going at that sort of rate I'd
stop and watch (from a distance). If I had a movie camera I'd film it.

and even odder that you can hear the windmill after it collapses.

Actually just watched it again, I see what you mean, but that just seems
like dodgy editing (due to the slow-mo?) where the video and sound are
way out of sync.

Agreed duff editing.

How do you shut a windturbine down after the winds are too strong?

Automatically feather the blades, face it into the wind, apply brakes and
pray. If any part of the automatics fail, then you "have a problem".

A Vestas turbine again I read in the Copenhagen Post link. There have been
a couple of Vestas turbine collapses in this country in the last year.
Both in high winds...

http://www.campbeltowncourier.co.uk/...354/Bent_doubl
e.html

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7168275.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content..._down_20080103
_gallery.shtml?1
http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/opi...aspx?id=583095
http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/new...aspx?id=585346
http://www.off-grid.net/2008/01/15/v...bine-collapse/

Note in the BBC News Story:

"The Health and Safety Executive said it would not investigate the
incident as no-one was hurt. Police and the turbine owners are looking
into the collapse."

The news (rather than opinion) from the Cumberland News:
"The wind turbine collapse is thought to be the first of its kind in the
29-year history of the British Wind Energy Association."

Er have the BWEA got a *very* short memories or doesn't the Scottish
collapse count for some reason... The off-grid link implies that the
Scottish collapse is down to "foul play". I haven't found any reports,
preliminary or otherwise, into the reasons behind either collapse, has
anyone else?

--
Cheers
Dave.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:32:47 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

I saw this video before you posted the link. Just odd that it was being
filmed as it collapsed (not many do)
Presumably somebody realised it was going too fast and filmed it
*because* of that, rather than just by chance

That is my view. If I saw a wind turbine going at that sort of rate I'd
stop and watch (from a distance). If I had a movie camera I'd film it.

and even odder that you can hear the windmill after it collapses.
Actually just watched it again, I see what you mean, but that just seems
like dodgy editing (due to the slow-mo?) where the video and sound are
way out of sync.

Agreed duff editing.

How do you shut a windturbine down after the winds are too strong?

Automatically feather the blades, face it into the wind, apply brakes and
pray. If any part of the automatics fail, then you "have a problem".

A Vestas turbine again I read in the Copenhagen Post link. There have been
a couple of Vestas turbine collapses in this country in the last year.
Both in high winds...

http://www.campbeltowncourier.co.uk/...354/Bent_doubl
e.html

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7168275.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content..._down_20080103
_gallery.shtml?1
http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/opi...aspx?id=583095
http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/new...aspx?id=585346
http://www.off-grid.net/2008/01/15/v...bine-collapse/

Note in the BBC News Story:

"The Health and Safety Executive said it would not investigate the
incident as no-one was hurt. Police and the turbine owners are looking
into the collapse."

The news (rather than opinion) from the Cumberland News:
"The wind turbine collapse is thought to be the first of its kind in the
29-year history of the British Wind Energy Association."

Er have the BWEA got a *very* short memories or doesn't the Scottish
collapse count for some reason... The off-grid link implies that the
Scottish collapse is down to "foul play". I haven't found any reports,
preliminary or otherwise, into the reasons behind either collapse, has
anyone else?

Its just one more nail in the coffin, for me. These things already use -
due to the low load factors - more materials than a proper turbine set
should, and each one needs regular maintenance, from a team that is
going to have to be there onsite ..and that means thousands of people
looking after them on ny large scale implementation.

Two technologies vanished overnight due almost COMPLETELY to their
servicing requirements being massively more than the replacement: The
steam locomotive and the piston engined commercial aeroplane.

It was te same erason that on the Fens the windmill pumps were replaced
wit first steam engines ,then diesels, and then electrics..lower and
lower maintenance required.

Largely because the windmills were so pathetic at pumping you needed one
in every field at least. Whereas a big steam engine could drain tens of
square miles..

[geoff]

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Andy Burns wrote:
On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?
It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ...

Until the feathering mechanism goes wrong.

Fortinately nuclear power stations are built to much higher
standards of safety.;-)

Maybe the webbed footed one might check out the editorial from last
months NS - expediency over safety

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-editorial-don

t-mess-with-nuclear-safety.html

unless of course he thinks it's left wing propaganda

ah what's this ?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...70b1f37-7efe-4

6c1-a165-8b0efd4dfcaa&k=22708

same story ...

Basically, the head of the Cabadian Nuclear Safety commission, Linda
Keen, closed down a plant where two safety critical back up cooling
pumps were missing in a "clear breach of safety".
Instead of prioritising installing these pumps, the reactor was
reopened regardless and fired Keen
Higher standards of safety ?

Yup. At least there WAS a clear directive to have a backup system in
place, and somebody policing it. Something that seems entirely absent
from windmills.

Of course you wont ever get a clear unbiased story from the New
Scientist/guardian type rags...

The fact remains, the windmill blew up, the nuclear power station did
not.

Why? because nuclear power stations these days have to be built to
standards that no other industry has to. If stringent safety systems
were applied to windmills, they would be *totally* uneconomic, instead
of merely 6-10 times as expensive as a nuclear power stations, and no
one could claim their greeny points (like brownie points, but more
vomit colored) for being involved with them..

It was not built to the standard required by it's operating licence

Such a fault is potentially far more serious than a windmill falling down

Much more disturbing is the Canadian government's riding roughshod over
this and, instead of prioritising the work needed, fired the
commissioner and reopened the plant

and, especially for you I included one of several more references to
this story

[The Real Doctor]

On 25 Feb, 17:55, "ARWadworth" wrote:

I saw this video before you posted the link. Just odd that it was being
filmed as it collapsed (not many do) and even odder that you can hear the
windmill after it collapses.

I presume what's audible is a much closer one, out of shot.

Ian