In message , AJH
writes
Xposts reduced
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:19:27 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:
In message , Peter Parry
writes
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:44:52 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

One development in the UK is state intervention in the market to
accredit installers and equipment.

A great pity the accreditation didn't involve actual testing of
devices to prove they worked and that their performance was at least
close to the sellers invariably vastly overstated claims.

Too bad you don't know what on earth you are talking about then. That's
precisely what the accreditation of equipment does cover !!

Was that "does cover" or "is supposed to cover".

I know certain aspects of accreditation for the clear skies grant
thingy resembled the CE certification scam but I shall claim 5th
amendment (??) on that.

All the products are sent to independent testing laboratories at
considerable cost to the manufacturers and the results are published -
not that most consumers can be bothered to read them, even when you
point them at them !

In what respect was CE a scam ?


As far as I recall the Windsave machine quotes a rated power at a given
wind speed - and there is nothing wrong that per se, it probably meets
that spec, though a proper power curve would be nice.

Yes, do you have any?

Not for the Windsave - that's another of my criticisms of it.

It's pretty much axiomatic in the wind industry that you don't buy
anything without seeing a power curve !


I've been given some detailed data, c/o a poster
to uk.d-i-y, and a curve to map it to other than a simple cube law
would be nice.

Yes. The one I saw in B&Q looked as if it has some sort of dynamic
blade pitch control, so it won't be a simple cube.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore