Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:58:54 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

"N_Cook" wrote in
:
I've never understood why there is not a prop shaft the length of
those towers and then any old (heavy) generator at ground/sea level.

Think about it for a while.
Hints;a 160 ft long shaft,torquing in the wind,and needing bearing
support. then there's the mass of the shaft that has to be started and
stopped with shifts in wind velocity. Cost of the shaft,too. I'm sure
there's more.

Fast fix... no tower:
http://www.interactivearchitecture.org/flying-wind-turbines.html
(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Going from a horizontal turbine to a vertical generator is a gearing
problem. Vertical turbines are possible. A Slavonius rotor or
Darrieus turbine might qualify as a vertical prop (turbine) shaft, but
nobody has built one 300ft high.
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=savonius+wind+turbine
http://www.google.com/images?hl=et&q=darrieus+turbine

This page gives a good comparison of the common types of wind
turbines:
http://www.thegreentechnologyblog.co...utions-for-win
d-power-generated-electricity/
Note the graph labeled "Wind Turbine Peak Efficiency" which
underscores the basic problem with vertical rotors. They're not very
efficient when compared to air screws (propellers).



wind power itself is not very efficient.....and certainly not reliable.
best left for special applications,just like solar.

for electric power,build nuclear plants. clean,reliable,constant output,and
it can be done right now.
of course,electric isn't going to substitute for petroleum,not for a long
time.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com