In article <q9han11in81ivoikii6v5bkbbdr0dhg42e@4ax.com>
blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid "Bruce L. Bergman" writes:

> Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)
>
> I've gone by the Tehachapi wind farms several times, and there are a
> few local turbines in Palmdale, and there weren't workers out there
> sweeping up vast piles of dead birds at the base of the turbines -
> matter of fact, I've never seen a single one. If this is such a
> "Major Issue", where are they?

Not trying to be adversarial: around the Mojave/Tehachapi wind
farms I'd expect the local coyotes and other predators to have
discovered, long ago, that the Places With The Thrumming Trees
are good spots at which to catch up stunned, dead or otherwise
helpless meals: within hours, nothing to sweep up. ;-) Going
by what I have seen of the admittedly often scrawny vegetation
there over several visits, even a big bird could lie unseen by
passing road travellers. But I am willing to learn otherwise.

One parallel is not exact but close: power lines commonly snag
birds as they fly past. That's why you will see silvery *****
strung on the lines, especially at valley mouths where flyways
lead up into (and down from) hill country. Here in the UK the
power company have cut local swan deaths by this precaution.
--
Andrew Stephenson

 

"Bruce L. Bergman" <blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:q9han11in81ivoikii6v5bkbbdr0dhg42e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:58:50 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>notbob wrote:
>
>>> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
>>> technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
>>> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
>>> monopolize for their own gain.
>>
>>Wind turbines are not free. Dead birds from turbines are a major
>>issue. Solar cells are still costly to manufacture.
>
> Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)
>
> I've gone by the Tehachapi wind farms several times, and there are a
> few local turbines in Palmdale, and there weren't workers out there
> sweeping up vast piles of dead birds at the base of the turbines -
> matter of fact, I've never seen a single one. If this is such a
> "Major Issue", where are they?
>
> --<< Bruce >>--
>

I've read articles that said that birds occasionally flew into the blades of
the propeller-type horizontal-axis turbines. I've seen a private one near
Reno, NV close up and have driven by the ones at Tehachapi many times in the
past and have not noticed any dead birds either, but I suppose that the
occasional bird does get chopped. Even though turbine RPM may be relatively
low, the speed of the tip is pretty high due to the diameter of the blades
so a bird that is flying to a particular space which is clear one moment has
a blade coming around the next. Because of this, planners try to place wind
farms out of the path of flocks of birds.

I just happened to read about a company that is developing a vertical axis
wind turbine http://www.tmawind.com/index.htm

They are trying to develop a turbine that is more bird-friendly and does not
develop magnetic resonance that can interfere with aircraft navigation.
Their site had pictures of their turbine but I couldn't find one today. The
turbine was almost as tall as the prop-type but instead of blades, the vanes
looked like long tubes that were cut in half along the long axis, spinning
like a washing machine agitator between fixed vanes that direct the wind
into the moving vanes.

The wind-turbine-powered house I saw was built in the high desert near Reno
over 20 years ago. It had 2 turbines and a room about the size of a one-car
garage filled with lead-acid batteries. The house had 2 sets of wiring, 12
volt for lighting and 110 volt for appliances. I suppose the technology has
advanced quite a bit by now, but it was kind of irritating to watch the
picture on the TV shrink and expand, and the lights fluctuate in intensity.

--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

 

Mike Hunter wrote:
> You are entitled to you own opinion but the proof is in the pudding, as they
> say. You can prove it too yourself if you wish. Drive in hilly or
> mountainous parts of the county and notice which vehicles fall behind others
> when you come to a grade. ;(
>
> mike hunt

I drive through the Sierra Nevadas frequently and the Rocky Mountains
once every few years. Our V-6 Honda is much, much better at this than
is our V-6 Oldsmobile.

John

 

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

> Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)
>
> I've gone by the Tehachapi wind farms several times, and there are a
> few local turbines in Palmdale, and there weren't workers out there
> sweeping up vast piles of dead birds at the base of the turbines -
> matter of fact, I've never seen a single one. If this is such a
> "Major Issue", where are they?
>


USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...lls-usat_x.htm

Google is your friend.

John

 

John Horner wrote:

> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> You are entitled to you own opinion but the proof is in the pudding, as they
>> say. You can prove it too yourself if you wish. Drive in hilly or
>> mountainous parts of the county and notice which vehicles fall behind others
>> when you come to a grade. ;(
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> I drive through the Sierra Nevadas frequently and the Rocky Mountains
> once every few years. Our V-6 Honda is much, much better at this than
> is our V-6 Oldsmobile.
>
> John

Please don't feed the trolls.

 

In article <pan.2005.11.12.13.23.01.415158@hightech.misfit>
me@privacy.net "High Tech Misfit" writes:

> Please don't feed the trolls.

In general, I'd AOL that. In this case, Mike Hunter doesn't even
make it to "troll" status, just "loud-mouthed ignoramus". And we
seem to be creating an interesting discussion despite him. <g>
--
Andrew Stephenson

 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:33:08 GMT, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
Stephenson) wrote:

>One parallel is not exact but close: power lines commonly snag
>birds as they fly past. That's why you will see silvery *****
>strung on the lines, especially at valley mouths where flyways
>lead up into (and down from) hill country. Here in the UK the
>power company have cut local swan deaths by this precaution.

Sorry, but no. That's not the primary reason why the visibility
***** are placed, or they would be installed on all power lines.

The power lines in selected locations tend to snag more METAL birds
than live birds as they fly past, I.E. light airplanes and
helicopters. Some power lines cross small valleys and rivers
laterally from peak to peak, and the power transmission wires can be
very high over the terrain below - where a pilot following visual
flight rules would assume he has clear air. If the light is wrong,
you can't see those wires till you are right on top of them.

All it takes is the local radio station's traffic reporting plane or
the local police patrol helicopter flying too low in the wrong place,
trying to spot a traffic tie-up or follow a pursuit. If they happen
by at the same altitude as the power lines, it gets really messy.

The visibility ***** on the static wire are there to show the wire
location clearly, even in low visibility conditions where the pilots
can't see the towers.

--<< Bruce >>--

--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 05:55:26 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)
>>
>> I've gone by the Tehachapi wind farms several times, and there are a
>> few local turbines in Palmdale, and there weren't workers out there
>> sweeping up vast piles of dead birds at the base of the turbines -
>> matter of fact, I've never seen a single one. If this is such a
>> "Major Issue", where are they?
>>
>
>
>USA Today:
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...lls-usat_x.htm
>
>Google is your friend.

Yeah, it is - and here's the top two hits I got, which
coincidentally enough show the other side:

http://www.homepower.com/files/birds.pdf

They have a sound theory that may explain the few places that bird
strikes are concentrated in, namely the Altamont Pass near San
Francisco - agricultural pesticides are used on rodents, raptors eat
the rodents, and are drugging the raptors so stupid they're flying
into the generators - even when they are not turning at the time.

A bird flying into a stationary tower or a stationary wind turbine
blade is not the fault of the tower. It's the bird's responsibility
to spot and navigate around fixed obstacles. They have eyes. Too bad
they're connected to a brain the size of a pea.

And the other - http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

Wow - all those birds running into lighted and checkerboard-painted
radio towers, and the sides of fixed buildings....

To conclude: It's tough to be a bird.

--<< Bruce >>--

--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

 

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote:
> Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)

www.sfgate.com

San Francisco Chronicle
12/19/04
Jane Kay, Chronicle Environmental Writer

Taming the Deadly Wind Farm Key Source of Renewable Energy
Often Lethal For Birds

If environmentalists and state officials have their way, the
towering windmills that dot the Altamont Pass will be replaced
and moved to prevent the killing of thousands of birds annually,
including species protected under federal and state laws.
....
With 5,000 windmills in a 50 square mile area, the Altamont Pass
is the world's largest windfarm, producing electricity to power
200,000 households annually. But it is also the worst in the
country for slaughtering birds.

Altamont Pass is a prime hunting ground for golden eagles and other
raptors, and scientists estimate _conservatively_ that the turbines
kill some 4,700 birds every year. ...

 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:IbicncEdhJ8wTOneUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> The fact is you are the blowhard. You supplied the facts yourself but you
> still don't understand the relative difference between HP and the ideal
> application of tongue to HP. I'll waste no more time trying to enlighten
you
> on the subject.. Ford could easily develop more HP for that engine by
> winding it up if they chose to, but the torgue available at the normal
> driving rage of 2,000 RPMs makes for a better performing engine. If you
are
> satisfied with the power your vehicle has that is your opinion and your
> business. The fact is those in the industry knows otherwise, Toyotas are
> generally underpowered vis a
> v their domestic comparators, whether you happen to agree or not. is
> immaterial.
>
> mike hunt

Ah, the unsupported "underpowered" assertion again. Can'te leave it alone,
can you? But you can't supply any facts, either, can you? You're the
bllowhard.

The '05 Sienna has more power than the '05 Freestar. Remember what Edmunds
had to say about the Freestar:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/ford...chlanding.html
"Unrefined powertrains with less horsepower and worse fuel mileage than most
competitors..."

The Camry is one of the most popular cars on the market. Toyota actually
makes money selling them. Most people think the 4 is at least adequately
powered or they wouldn't buy them and Toyota wouldn't make money selling
them. Friends who drive them think they move out just fine (and none of
these owns one of the latest with VVTi and a better power-to-weight ratio
than ever before).

Case closed.

Of course, we're talking about normal sedans and other passenger cars, not
fuel-wasting *****-substitutes such as the Mustang GT. If you really
need your fuel-wasting *****-substitute, and consider anything less than a
fuel-wasting *****-substitute to be underpowered, well. we can't help you
there.

 

Camry may still be the number one selling car but it was never the number
one vehicle sold in the US. The F150 is the number one seller and has been
for nearly thirty years, at just about twice as many sold as the Camry.
Camry is aparently not as popular as it was last year either. Cold it be
becse they are underpowered? The Camry was the ONLY vehicle in the top five
to lose sales in 2005, it dropped around 20,000 sales, falling from third
place to fourth below the Dodge Ram. The others all gained sales, including
the Honda Accord, which is actully made in the US, not merely assembed of
imported parts like the Camry

VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.

1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1



"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message >

> The Camry is one of the most popular cars on the market. Toyota actually
> makes money selling them. Most people think the 4 is at least adequately
> powered or they wouldn't buy them and Toyota wouldn't make money selling
> them. Friends who drive them think they move out just fine (and none of
> these owns one of the latest with VVTi and a better power-to-weight ratio
> than ever before).
>
>

 

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Camry may still be the number one selling car but it was never the number
> one vehicle sold in the US. The F150 is the number one seller and has been
> for nearly thirty years, at just about twice as many sold as the Camry.
> Camry is aparently not as popular as it was last year either. Cold it be
> becse they are underpowered? The Camry was the ONLY vehicle in the top five
> to lose sales in 2005, it dropped around 20,000 sales, falling from third
> place to fourth below the Dodge Ram. The others all gained sales, including
> the Honda Accord, which is actully made in the US, not merely assembed of
> imported parts like the Camry
>
> VEHICLE Sales Y-T-D 2005 Last Yr. '04 Rank Chg.
>
> 1 Ford F-Series pickup 760,929 740,817 1 +2.7
> 2 Chevrolet Silverado pickup 616,139 575,886 2 +7.0
> 3 Dodge Ram pickup 409,252 362,122 6 +13.0
> 4 Toyota Camry 383,478 403,136 3 -4.9
> 5 Honda Accord 371,307 367,210 5 +1.1

Wow! I never realized that the top 3 selling vehicles in America are
pick-up trucks. That's enlightening.
Rich

 

In article <he4cn15ikkbsvihp0rlbom29lkc3ausdlc@4ax.com>
blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid "Bruce L. Bergman" writes:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:33:08 GMT, ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew
> Stephenson) wrote:
>
> >One parallel is not exact but close: power lines commonly snag
> >birds as they fly past. That's why you will see silvery *****
> >strung on the lines, especially at valley mouths where flyways
> >lead up into (and down from) hill country. Here in the UK the
> >power company have cut local swan deaths by this precaution.
>
> Sorry, but no. That's not the primary reason why the visibility
> ***** are placed, or they would be installed on all power lines.
>
> [discussion of the US situation]

Thanks for the insights on the USian setup. However, our local
power company here in the eastern UK did install such power line
decorations to save swans/geese/etc from accidents, when flying
around favoured grazing/landing sites. Maybe they saved the odd
plane too -- dunno.

Back to the windmills: perhaps I ought to enquire as to rates of
bird strike locally, now that more and more of the whirly things
are being installed. Mind, some are offshore, by a mile or two,
and I am guessing we can spare the odd seagull (breeding to pest
numbers).
--
Andrew Stephenson

 

What's the relationship between torque and HP? I never understood
that.

And I had a year of physics at an engineering shchool.

I know power is work and torque is twisting force (F * r), but somehow
I would think the two would be very similar.

 

"st-bum" <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131860509.264966.282990@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> What's the relationship between torque and HP? I never understood
> that.
>
> And I had a year of physics at an engineering shchool.
>
> I know power is work and torque is twisting force (F * r), but somehow
> I would think the two would be very similar.
>
The difference is in the rpm curves. It really all hinges on the torque
anyway, as you point out, since for a given torque the hp rises in
proportion to rpm.

The low end torque is stuff I never really got a handle on, but at the high
end (where most of the controversy is anyway) it is all related to
breathing. Things like intake and exhaust design and cam considerations of
valve lift, duration and overlap can increase the useful torque at high rpms
and thereby increase the maximum power.

The torque/power debate really comes down to gearing. If we could select any
gear ratio we wanted any time we wanted, we could make good use of maximum
power and nobody would talk about torque. Back in the real world, within
each gear ratio, the torque curve determines the acceleration we feel.

Mike