"DJT" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:19:21 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"DJT" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:19:21 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:03:09 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

I don't think I mentioned Windsave ...

You didn't.

However, it is worth repeating what they say on their web site, on
the WS-1000 page from the Technical menu, "The Windsave System is
ideal to install at all locations that benefit from good exposure to
the wind."

Quite a misleading comment when they also say

The average wind speed across the UK is ~5.6m/sec. at 10m above the
ground

Why is it misleading?

Mary


How many average houses do you think would have an average wind speed
of 5.6m/sec. =13 MPH below ridge height. ?

I've no idea, that's not what was said though.

Mary

On 2006-11-06 09:29:16 +0000, "Dave Liquorice" said:

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:00:38 +0000, mogga wrote:

... almost as bad as having to go to a main post office to buy a car licence.

Can't you do that online yet?

You can now, but if you want your local PO to survive I wouldn't recomend it.

Doesn't make a difference. The local one is a sub post office and for
whatever reason not authorised to issue car licences. I have no idea
why - bureaucratic nonsense because it's not difficult.

So the option is then to visit the main post office in the town,
necessitating finding and paying for somewhere to park and then having
to queue for 20mins. I detest all aspects of that, so if there is an
on line option, that will be the next solution. The only other thing
I use the Post Office to do is to send a few items by Special Delivery
each month. That could be replaced by Interlink or someone like
that.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:14:43 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

I've no idea, that's not what was said though.

Distortion of what is said is a common tactic by the antis. It is
mildly amusing.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:14:43 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

I've no idea, that's not what was said though.

Distortion of what is said is a common tactic by the antis. It is
mildly amusing.

I've noticed that too :-)

Mary

In article ,
"Mary Fisher" wrote:

... [re hospitals...]
During Spouse's stay I was welcomed by the staff because I was relieving
them of personal care. I also took in his meals and drinks. I went in for
five or six hours during the day and two or three in the evening. I asked if
it were acceptable and was told that it was no problem. That way I could
also be involved in the physiotherapist's, pain team's and consultant's
visits.

What an unexpected _treat_ for them!

John

"John" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mary Fisher" wrote:

.. [re hospitals...]
During Spouse's stay I was welcomed by the staff because I was relieving
them of personal care. I also took in his meals and drinks. I went in for
five or six hours during the day and two or three in the evening. I asked
if
it were acceptable and was told that it was no problem. That way I could
also be involved in the physiotherapist's, pain team's and consultant's
visits.

What an unexpected _treat_ for them!

They all said, in different ways, that they preferred to talk to wives as
well because men often forgot or didn't take notice of what they said.

Mary

Travelling around hospitals for work it has come to my notice that
there have been big increases in parking charges over the last year,
usually accompanied by new ticket machines and exit barrier systems.

Typically it might have gone up from a flat fee of £1.00 per stay to
£2.50 for up to 4 hours. A 500% increase.

don't you just love rip-off Britain...

So the option is then to visit the main post office in the town,
necessitating finding and paying for somewhere to park and then having to
queue for 20mins. I detest all aspects of that, so if there is an on
line option, that will be the next solution.

Worst thing they ever did introducing single queues. At least before you
could see
who was in which queue and make an informed decision on who was likely to be
banking £20 in pennies

Single qs with incessent adverts for insurance savings schemes blaring
away... bit like the "your call is important to us"
nonsense. Bring back the engaged tone if companies cannot be bothered to
answer the phone

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:25:02 GMT DMac wrote :
Travelling around hospitals for work it has come to my notice that
there have been big increases in parking charges over the last year,
usually accompanied by new ticket machines and exit barrier systems.

Typically it might have gone up from a flat fee of £1.00 per stay to
£2.50 for up to 4 hours. A 500% increase.

don't you just love rip-off Britain...

Given the limited parking at our local hospitals, I would suggest it's
more rationing by price.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.. .
In my case, 4 cheques this year, but one of them was lost by
Legal and General (who can't handle BACS either), and one of
them was car tax too.

I haven't written a cheque since 2004. Before that, it was 2001.

Christian.



The only cheques we write nowadays are for the kid's school meals tickets.
We have to buy a book of tickets for each kid every couple of weeks.

The local council is firmly stuck in the 19th century.
It's only recently that some of the bigger council-run leisure facilities
have started accepting anything other than cash or cheque.

I see that many petrol stations now refuse to accept cheques.

--
Ron

The only cheques we write nowadays are for the kid's school meals tickets.
We have to buy a book of tickets for each kid every couple of weeks.

Luckily my school accepts cold hard cash for this and you can pay up to a
year in advance if you are so inclined.

Christian.

"DMac" wrote in message
. uk...
Travelling around hospitals for work it has come to my notice that
there have been big increases in parking charges over the last year,
usually accompanied by new ticket machines and exit barrier systems.

Typically it might have gone up from a flat fee of £1.00 per stay to
£2.50 for up to 4 hours. A 500% increase.

don't you just love rip-off Britain...

If you don't like it ... :-)

2006 has been The Year of the Hospitals for us and we've used seven
different hospital dedicated car parks during consultations, examinations,
fittings, ay and long term surgery and visiting. They've all had different
pay structures, some were long term, some short. None was run by the
hospital and none of the hospitals benefitted from the charges. I was happy
to pay far more than £4 for a five hour stay, in fact I'm happy to pay for
hospital car parking whatever it is.

It's a privilege to have a car, we pay for associated privileges. If we
don't like it we can use public transport or mini-cabs, someone said it
wouldn't be any more expensive :-)

Mary

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.. .
The only cheques we write nowadays are for the kid's school meals
tickets.
We have to buy a book of tickets for each kid every couple of weeks.

Luckily my school accepts cold hard cash for this and you can pay up to a
year in advance if you are so inclined.

Christian.

You're still at school???

You look very mature for your age :-)

Mary

DJT wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 14:21:22 +0000, Zoinks
wrote:

All,
Wandering around the local shed today I notice that they have started
doing wind turbines for £1500 inc. installation and VAT.

The bumf says the following:

1) The turbine generates (up to) 1kW
2) It will save me (up to) 30% of my electricity bill
3) Planning permission is (probably) not needed - it equates it with a
satellite dish.
4) The UK Government will (probably) stump up 30% of the cost.
5) It will pay for itself in (around) 7-12 years.

Any thoughts?

Z.

This has been covered extensively before with some useful facts and
figers see
http://tinyurl.com/y9locd
best to start from about post 60
but to sum up
the advertising blurb from Windsave is wildly optimistic and possibly
even deceitful.
you would need to average over 6ms windspeed for most of the year for
this to be even remotely financially worthwhile.

Only extremely exposed coastal or hill top sites would be able to
achieve this, fine if like me you live in a ex lighthouse-radar
station overlooking the north sea

, but on the side of a urban house below ridge height as in the
Windsave picture it would never even repay its purchase price over 12
years.

Dan


Just rang them about the cost of pole and brackets - they are included
in the cost, the leaflet says the weight excludes it. Must read more
carefully!

However they did tell me that BS24 in Somerset has an average speed of
3.8m/s and it needs 4.5m/s, so no use here. I asked why B&W sell it
round here and they suggested I ask them!

You're still at school???

You look very mature for your age :-)

I just go in for Jamie's dinners.

Besides, how do you know what I look like?

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.. .
You're still at school???

You look very mature for your age :-)

I just go in for Jamie's dinners.

:-)

Besides, how do you know what I look like?

I'm a mother, mothers can see through doors.

Mary

wrote in message
oups.com...

....

However they did tell me that BS24 in Somerset has an average speed of
3.8m/s and it needs 4.5m/s, so no use here. I asked why B&W sell it
round here and they suggested I ask them!

Well, no other company would know. Ask B&Q and tell us what they say :-)

Mary

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 08:14:50 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:14:43 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

I've no idea, that's not what was said though.

Distortion of what is said is a common tactic by the antis.

Im hardly an Anti as I am seriously considering installing a
wind-turbine
But I do object to Windsave misleading advertising.
The long-term effect will only harm people's opinion of renewable
energy use.

It is
mildly amusing.

i dont think so.




Dan

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:25:02 GMT DMac wrote :
Travelling around hospitals for work it has come to my notice that
there have been big increases in parking charges over the last year,
usually accompanied by new ticket machines and exit barrier systems.

Typically it might have gone up from a flat fee of £1.00 per stay to
£2.50 for up to 4 hours. A 500% increase.

don't you just love rip-off Britain...

Given the limited parking at our local hospitals, I would suggest it's
more rationing by price.

--

Our local hospital has limited parking space. We often found the car park
nearest the neo-natal unit full and had to park the other side of the rather
large site, often still having to wait for a place to become free.

This even though the hospital was built on an isolated greenfields site and
is surrounded by space. During the planning stage the local authority
deliberately forced the consortium to provide less spaces than the projected
need "to encourage the use of public transport" Unfortunately our county is
a rural one with a poor public transport network so you can guess the
outcome of that marvellous policy.

H

In article ,
"HLAH" wrote:

...During the planning stage the local authority
deliberately forced the consortium to provide less spaces than the projected
need "to encourage the use of public transport" Unfortunately our county is
a rural one with a poor public transport network so you can guess the
outcome of that marvellous policy.

Yes: we get that both where I live (Northumberland) and where I work
(Newcastle). I would be less hostile to these brilliant ideas if the
"public transport" were also owned and run by the public. There's
almost no choice at all, except to use your car; and when there is a
choice, you look at the crappy, dirty, noisy, **extremely* expensive* PT
option, and then you look at your car, and you think: sod it.

By the way for my commuting, I car-share with three others. That doesn't
make me feel smug; it makes me feel less guilty about being alive in Mr
Blair's Britain[1]. (Ey! I used to vote Labour a long time ago!)

John

[1] Sorry. This is not Mr Blair's Britain. This is Mrs *******
Thatcher's Britain, overlaid with Mr Blair's thick veneer of
finger-wagging political correctness.

Sorry: I notice this thread is called "B&Q Wind turbines"

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:56:03 -0000 someone who may be "HLAH"
wrote this:-

Our local hospital has limited parking space. We often found the car park
nearest the neo-natal unit full and had to park the other side of the rather
large site, often still having to wait for a place to become free.

This even though the hospital was built on an isolated greenfields site and
is surrounded by space. During the planning stage the local authority
deliberately forced the consortium to provide less spaces than the projected
need "to encourage the use of public transport" Unfortunately our county is
a rural one with a poor public transport network so you can guess the
outcome of that marvellous policy.

The people who should be blamed for this sort of thing are whatever
the NHS is called this week. They are the ones who have decided to
build most new hospitals in the middle of nowhere, usually partly at
the behest of some senior quack who wants somewhere to park his car.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 7 Nov 2006 07:34:45 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

However they did tell me that BS24 in Somerset has an average speed of
3.8m/s and it needs 4.5m/s, so no use here.

According to the antis you must be lying, because they would never
tell you that in their desire to sell you a "useless" turbine:-)


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

DJT wrote:

I've no idea, that's not what was said though.

Distortion of what is said is a common tactic by the antis.


Im hardly an Anti as I am seriously considering installing a
wind-turbine
But I do object to Windsave misleading advertising.
The long-term effect will only harm people's opinion of renewable
energy use.

Precisely... you only need look at the example in shop photo of a
turbine installed below the ridge line in an urban area alongside the
claims of (up to) 30% off your electricity bill.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:53:24 GMT, DJT wrote:

Im hardly an Anti as I am seriously considering installing a
wind-turbine
But I do object to Windsave misleading advertising.
The long-term effect will only harm people's opinion of renewable
energy use.

The B&Q rubbish will probably put the whole thing back 100 years.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:56:03 -0000 someone who may be "HLAH"
wrote this:-

Our local hospital has limited parking space. We often found the car park
nearest the neo-natal unit full and had to park the other side of the
rather
large site, often still having to wait for a place to become free.

This even though the hospital was built on an isolated greenfields site
and
is surrounded by space. During the planning stage the local authority
deliberately forced the consortium to provide less spaces than the
projected
need "to encourage the use of public transport" Unfortunately our county
is
a rural one with a poor public transport network so you can guess the
outcome of that marvellous policy.

The people who should be blamed for this sort of thing are whatever
the NHS is called this week. They are the ones who have decided to
build most new hospitals in the middle of nowhere, usually partly at
the behest of some senior quack who wants somewhere to park his car.

In the hospital I was talking about, it's in the inner city. Houses were
demolished to make the car park I used.

The other major hospital in our city is in the city centre, that's even more
difficult. They built a multi-storey car park for that.

But there ARE buses ...

Mary

"DJT" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 08:14:50 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:14:43 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

I've no idea, that's not what was said though.

Distortion of what is said is a common tactic by the antis.

Im hardly an Anti as I am seriously considering installing a
wind-turbine
But I do object to Windsave misleading advertising.
The long-term effect will only harm people's opinion of renewable
energy use.

It is
mildly amusing.

i dont think so.

Nor do I.

But I've no experience of Windsave so can#'t comment with authority.

Mary




Dan

"EricP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:53:24 GMT, DJT wrote:

Im hardly an Anti as I am seriously considering installing a
wind-turbine
But I do object to Windsave misleading advertising.
The long-term effect will only harm people's opinion of renewable
energy use.

The B&Q rubbish will probably put the whole thing back 100 years.

Oh come ON!

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:55:01 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
The people who should be blamed for this sort of thing are whatever
the NHS is called this week. They are the ones who have decided to
build most new hospitals in the middle of nowhere, usually partly at
the behest of some senior quack who wants somewhere to park his car.

The ones I was thinking of are West Middlesex and Kingston which were
originally Victorian workhouses and are now in the middle of suburbia.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:02:47 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"EricP" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:53:24 GMT, DJT wrote:

Im hardly an Anti as I am seriously considering installing a
wind-turbine
But I do object to Windsave misleading advertising.
The long-term effect will only harm people's opinion of renewable
energy use.

The B&Q rubbish will probably put the whole thing back 100 years.

Oh come ON!


If they sell more than a few dozen, the backlash from the failure to
perform will be trumpeted from every media orifice. Sales of the
things dropping is a good thing, but not the research on them. It's
only the 1890 science in them that makes them mediocre. Nobody has
chucked money at the device to bring the concept into this century.

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:55:01 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

The people who should be blamed for this sort of thing are whatever
the NHS is called this week. They are the ones who have decided to
build most new hospitals in the middle of nowhere, usually partly at
the behest of some senior quack who wants somewhere to park his car.

You really are a dim pillock. Here nulabor have decided to put all
regional A&E at Watford, closing other (easily accessible) units
around the area to pay for it. There is of course a minor problem
with this well thought out strategy. Watford General Hospital is in
the middle of somewhere, specifically it on a narrow road next door
to Watford Football Club and easily accessible from the town centre
(where no one lives) and local to several schools. This means that
it is impossible to reach (blue light and sirens included) between
07:00 and 10:00 and 15:00 and 19:00 weekdays and more or less all day
Saturday when the footy supporters both fill the few hospital car
parks and abandon coaches across the (one) hospital entrance. You
can however get a local bus at 1 hour intervals although the 10:00
bus you catch is really the 07:00 running a bit late.

The local ambulance service tried a number of test runs which came
back as "incomplete" because the shift change occurred before the
crew who had set out from 4 miles away and two hours previously with
lights and sirens going got to the hospital.

This is good?
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:56:59 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

According to the antis you must be lying, because they would never
tell you that in their desire to sell you a "useless" turbine:-)

What a simple life you have, occupied only by pros and antis. To
test your simple outlook I asked Mr B&Q if one of their windmills
would work here (DTI (incorrect) wind estimate showing at 4.4m/s
average), actual about 1-2m/s. They said of course it would. I
asked if they would give any performance guarantee; of course they
wouldn't. I asked if I could get my money back if it didn't work at
all; of course I couldn't.

How accurate were their figures I asked - very they said - come from
an official government database. If they are that good why can't you
give me any performance guarantee I asked. Phone went dead.

Those with less blinkered views than your own will probably be able
to draw their own conclusions.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:56:59 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

According to the antis you must be lying, because they would never
tell you that in their desire to sell you a "useless" turbine:-)

What a simple life you have, occupied only by pros and antis. To
test your simple outlook I asked Mr B&Q if one of their windmills
would work here (DTI (incorrect) wind estimate showing at 4.4m/s
average), actual about 1-2m/s. They said of course it would. I
asked if they would give any performance guarantee; of course they
wouldn't. I asked if I could get my money back if it didn't work at
all; of course I couldn't.

How accurate were their figures I asked - very they said - come from
an official government database. If they are that good why can't you
give me any performance guarantee I asked. Phone went dead.

Those with less blinkered views than your own will probably be able
to draw their own conclusions.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

I called the number on the windsave web site, actually the installation
company, who told me that it would not work round here. There's no
point in them selling equipment that won't work.

Sounds like B&Q need to train their people.

On 8 Nov 2006 00:55:48 -0800, wrote:

I called the number on the windsave web site, actually the installation
company, who told me that it would not work round here.

I've just done so (The Mark Group) and they say its OK here. It
isn't.

The problem is partly that the data they use comes from the DTI wind
speed predictor at:-

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/renewables-explained/wind-energy/page27326.html

This model (NOABL) is rather misleadingly described as the UK Wind
Speed Database which implies there is a much greater degree of
measurement than there actually is.

The NOABL code was developed in the late 1970's by Science
Applications Inc. of La Jolla California. It includes little
atmospheric physics, the flow over an area is constrained to be non
divergent (conservation of mass). It is most applicable in complex
terrain where the wind is moderate to strong. In these cases the
topography is the main forcing factor on the wind, channeling the
flow, or causing it to flow over the hill tops

The input data for the model consists of DLMS terrain data together
with meteorological data from sites within the area to be studied.

NOABL has the advantage of being a relatively simple code which is
quick to run. It's disadvantages are its rather simplified physics
and low resolution. NOABL is also inappropriate to use if the
topography is fairly flat, since the main assumption is that the
topography is forcing the windflow.

In built up areas this database gives very misleading figures because
it takes no account of local surface roughness. A measured set of
data illustrating the difference between the UK database and reality
from Hugh Piggott, probably the leading expert in the UK on small
wind turbines, can be found at http://www.scoraigwind.com/citywinds/

A more accurate assessment of a sites potential can be made by
including surface roughness.
http://www.windpower.org/en/stat/unitsw.htm#lengths has a table of
roughness factors. So to estimate wind speed somewhat more
accurately :-

Use the DTI calculator to find the predicted "average air speed" for
10m height at your grid square (4.4m/s here).

Look up the surface roughness class (3 here).

Using the calculator at
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/calculat.htm enter the
predicted wind speed in the bottom left hand box (10m/0 roughness)
and press return. The table recalculates and you look up the same
height (10m) in the surface roughness column for 3 to read off the
actual value which is 2.2 m/s and close to the measurements I've
taken here.

Using Hugh Piggots Edinburgh data the measured and predicted data
matches if a surface roughness of about 3.5 is used (Large cities).

Why don't the manufacturers use this more complete calculation?
Simply because it wipes out most of their potential sales.

See http://www.iskrawind.com/windchecker.htm for an example of the
"calculator" in action producing the wrong figures.

Windsave also recommend the same calculator. Anyone who believes
Windsave figures would also do well to look at
http://greenfuture.blogspot.com/2003...e_archive.html
to see the box they were advertising a few years ago (and illustrated
on Hugh's page) claiming it generated 750W.

The "UK average" figure of 5.6m/sec is meaningless as the figure is
skewed by the high figure for Scotland and the west coast of Ireland.




--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:45:08 GMT EricP wrote :
If they sell more than a few dozen, the backlash from the failure
to perform will be trumpeted from every media orifice.

Not necessarily, because complaining will be the equivalent of donning
an "I'm a sucker" badge. Do they have any sort of meter showing how
much electricity they have produced? I suspect not, so those who have
paid up can tell themselves how much higher their bill would have been
if they hadn't bought one.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On 8 Nov 2006 00:55:48 -0800, wrote:


I called the number on the windsave web site, actually the installation
company, who told me that it would not work round here. There's no
point in them selling equipment that won't work.

Sounds like B&Q need to train their people.

and have the RSPCA on their backs? Somehow I think they will prefer
to sell more boxes to the uninformed and make money for their
shareholders.


--

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:01:40 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

In the hospital I was talking about, it's in the inner city. Houses were
demolished to make the car park I used.

The other major hospital in our city is in the city centre, that's even more
difficult. They built a multi-storey car park for that.

You are lucky. Around here they have been moved to the middle of
nowhere, in order to sell the land and fund the move.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:48:23 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

You really are a dim pillock.

Excellent, a personal attack.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:04:00 GMT someone who may be Tony Bryer
wrote this:-

Do they have any sort of meter showing how
much electricity they have produced?

Depends on the facilities provided by the box that connects it to
the external supply.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:45:08 GMT someone who may be EricP
wrote this:-

It's only the 1890 science in them that makes them mediocre.

I assume your assertion is to do with the engineering, rather then
the science. If it is then there is rather a lot of cutting edge
engineering in a number of fields in such devices. It is what has
bought the cost per watt down so dramatically in the larger ones.
Developments are continuing, examples being the ring around the
Swift blades and various designs of vertical axis turbine that are
being worked on.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:07:11 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

What a simple life you have, occupied only by pros and antis.

Excellent, another personal attack.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54