One for "Dynamo Dave"
|
One for "Dynamo Dave"
"Steve Firth" wrote in message ... Safe? Not Noisy? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257 Why did it collapse? Adam |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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 ... |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
"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? |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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? |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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. |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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.;-) |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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. |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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. |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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. |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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 |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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 |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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. |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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 ? |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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.. |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
"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 |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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? |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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 |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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 |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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 |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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. |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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.. |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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 |
One for "Dynamo Dave"
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter