backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by tapa.. on Nov 30 at 10:27 AM


A prototype of one of ExRo's stacks showcases the company's new electric transmission. The improvement could make wind power 50 percent more efficient over the course of a year.  (Source: ExRo)

A rendering of the stack illustrates how two rings of rotating magnets connect to the shaft (blue) generate power by passing coils (green and red). These coils can be selectively turned on and off by the electric transmission. Multiple stacks can be collected to a single shaft for better performance.  (Source: ExRo)
New wind generator design takes advantage of an advanced electrical transmission to decrease cost while boosting performance

While the costs of solar power have continually dropped over the past couple decades, wind power has only decreased slightly in cost, owing to a relative lack of sources of improvement.  Much of the wind power research has focused on either building larger turbines which are naturally more cost effective or trying to fit turbines into new areas.  Few looked to reinvent the base structure of the turbine.

Startup ExRo is not your average wind power company, though.  This think-outside-the-box firm has reinvented one of the most basic components of wind turbines -- the generator.  Its new design promises up to 50 percent more efficiency and lower production costs as well.

Ordinary wind power generators have an optimal rate which is fine tuned to local average wind conditions.  When the wind is blowing at this speed, the turbine produces electricity at an outstanding efficiency of around 90 percent.  However, when the wind blows faster or slower the efficiency significantly decreases. This is a major cause of why wind power is more expensive than coal, which burns in plants with turbines that turn at steady rates, maintaining the higher efficiency.

In the past, some have tried blades that change pitch to catch more or less wind and maintain a steady pace.  Others have used mechanical transmissions.  However, these components tend to be expensive, raise maintenance costs, and only help so much.

The new generator scraps the mechanical transmission, replacing it with an electrical one.  The new transmission still requires a bit of blade pitching when winds are extremely high.  However, it is able to extend the peak efficiency range significantly, balancing gusts and lulls, and producing, over the course of the year, up to 50 percent more power.

Ed Nowicki, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Calgary who consulted on the project said some locations could even see their power output double.

The generator is relatively standard in basic design, with magnets attached to a rotating shaft that create a current as they pass stationary copper coils arranged around the shaft.  In a normal generator all the coils are switched on.  When turning too slowly, this can cause excess resistance, decreasing the generator efficiency.

The coils on ExRo's generator are not on by default, but are controlled electronically based on wind speed.  At lower speeds only a couple coils are on, producing optimal efficiency, and as speeds ramp up, more coils are turned on to harvest the energy of the wind at peak efficiency.

The generator also sports another improvement.  Typically in order to generate more power at top speeds, you need more coils via a very large diameter generator.  However, such generators are very hard to get moving and more expensive.  The ExRo generator instead uses multiple small-diameter generators to produce an equivalent effect.  It calls each of these mini-generators stacks.  In addition to being able to harvest more wind power and change speed faster thanks to its small diameter, the design allows for easy customization on the production line for local wind conditions by adding or removing stacks.

While some other companies have tested multi-stack designs, these required multiple mechanical transmissions, which added too much weight and effectively negated much of the benefits.  By switching to an inexpensive electric transmission, ExRo was able to finally offer an effective version of this solution.

ExRo estimates that a utility employing its new generator will make 57 percent more money from a turbine over the course of a year.  These estimates come from scale models.  The company plans to test a small 5 kW turbine in the field later this year.  The company then plans to aggressively ramp up to megawatt-scale designs, at which point it will release finalized efficiency figures. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Pharagraph 3??
By Suntan on 11/19/2008 3:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
Would be nice to have some citation for the figures in paragraph 3.

90% efficient? Based on what metric? Just the work being put into the generator by the shaft, or based on some theoretical efficiency of the blades as well?

I highly doubt the entire setup, from wind to powerline, is ever 90% efficient.

Don’t mean to be anal, but it's articles like these that eviro-DBs point to when arguing that wind power can be 90% efficient compared to coal or natural gas fired turbines. When the reality is somewhat different.

-Suntan




RE: Pharagraph 3??
By 3DoubleD on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pharagraph 3??
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2008 4:41:54 PM , Rating: 5
The source article cites 90 percent shaft to line efficiency. Please read the sources attached to the article if you have questions about metrics.

I think the important point here is that this development will provide one of the most substantial increases to wind power efficiency in many years.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By Samus on 11/19/2008 5:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think it'd be kinda cool for automotive purpose as well. It took Tesla/Bosch two years to develope a transmission that could handle the torque of the electric motor in the Roadster. It wouldn't even need a machanical gearbox if it were integrated into the motor itself. Very cool idea.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By kontorotsui on 11/20/2008 7:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it'd be kinda cool for automotive purpose as well. It took Tesla/Bosch two years to develope a transmission that could handle the torque of the electric motor in the Roadster. It wouldn't even need a machanical gearbox if it were integrated into the motor itself. Very cool idea.


The latest Roadsters don't have gearboxes anymore.
A pity that electric sportscar jewel is probably going to disappear in the flow of the time.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By GaryJohnson on 11/19/2008 6:41:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Please read the sources attached to the article if you have questions about metrics.

When did DailyTech turn into DailyVague?


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By Suntan on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pharagraph 3??
By Doormat on 11/19/2008 10:53:46 PM , Rating: 4
Isn't that what all DT is? Rewriting press releases?


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By whiskerwill on 11/20/2008 2:15:22 AM , Rating: 3
There are some good stories here, and stuff you can't find elsewhere, or here first at least. This isn't one of them though.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By porkpie on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pharagraph 3??
By pjpizza on 11/20/2008 6:16:25 AM , Rating: 4
Jeeze guys...

First of all, if you look at the majority of "Tech News" websites, most of the news IS from freakin’ press releases... HOW ELSE DO YOU FIGUR ANYBODY WOULD KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS HAPPENING?

And another thing, the article states 90% efficiency. Why argue with that? If you don't have any hard fact's to why NOT that would be possible, then it's just hot air (or hot keys...).
This is from an article I just found on the web, dated from 2003:
"Compared to other machines, electric motors are very efficient, typically 95% for a 90 kW high efficiency motor. "
So if typically an electric motor can achieve 95% efficiency, why can't we get 90% from the blades to transmission lines. And don't give me some half assed comment about there being losses in every energy conversion. I want hard numbers...


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By theapparition on 11/20/2008 8:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
Because discussing efficiency without any hard facts for comparison purposes is irresponsible at best.......intentionally misinforming because of an agenda at worst.

Shaft to line efficiency may approach 90% in that design, which sounds great and all. However, that is only valid when the props are rotating at optimal speed. But what about total wind energy efficiency? Wind to prop efficiency at most can be 59% (Betz limit). Most modern optimized designs have an efficiency of 25-35%, and using the 90% conversion efficiency drops that down to 22-32% wind-electricity efficiency. Keep in mind that is still only valid for optimal wind speed. When wind speed changes, the energy efficiency drops. Variable prop geometry helps, but there is still an optimal range that is the theoretical maximum efficiency.

The transmission talked about in the article only serves to help boost realistic efficiency toward those maximum levels. That is a good thing. But to somehow sugar coat the idea that wind gets 90% efficiency is misleading. Wind, right now, gets an average of 5% total efficiency in optimal areas OVER TIME. That's because the wind doesn't blow constantly (if at all), and any excess energy produced gets discarded. This transmission may increase that to 8%, or even 10%. But that is a far cry from the 30-50% efficiencies that other competing sources of electricity generation are getting over the same amount of time.

I don't like when articles are intentionally written (not even Mick's, but the source article), to deceive the public to invest into their company and solutions, preying on the uninformed's "green" obsession.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By pjpizza on 11/20/2008 8:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the facts :)


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By Suntan on 11/20/2008 11:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And another thing, the article states 90% efficiency. Why argue with that? If you don't have any hard fact's to why NOT that would be possible, then it's just hot air (or hot keys...).


I know a guy that can fly.

Now unless you can provide me hard facts that the guy I know can’t fly, sit down shut up and accept the fact that the guy I know can fly…

Seems pretty silly doesn’t it? Yet it’s the same thing you are asking us to do.

The argument is not that we think anyone is outright lying, the argument is that efficiency calculations are completely based on how they are referenced. A generator could possibly be 90% efficient if a person is only talking about the power being put directly into spinning the armature inside the stator and comparing it to the theoretical output the generator could produce if it was 100% efficient, but that leaves out the real world issues of bearing friction in the bearings supporting the shafts, gear lash friction in the gearbox driving the shafts, etc. etc.

Not to mention the secondary parasitic power drain from things like cooling the electronics needed to control the system or run the motors needed to adjust the blades to keep them facing into the wind, etc. etc. Admittedly these secondary draws are minor, but they would affect an efficiency rating by a good degree if a person where looking at a frame of reference that encompassed all the energy being put into the entire wind tower instead of just the frame of reference of just the power going into the armature of the generator.

Now, I will admit that for the most part all these things will tend to equal out if a person is talking about similar windmills and just the generator designs would be swapped, but the issue is that someone with little understanding of the real world requirements would just cut this “90%” efficient figure out of this article and compare it to some figure like “40%” efficient claimed in some article about a gas fired plant and come to a conclusion that windmills must be better. The only problem is that the analysis of the gas fired plant might have taken into account the inefficiencies of burning the coal (the actual heat transferred from the incomplete burning compared to burning it all at its theoretical HHV, the amount of energy actually transferred to the boiler compared to the amount lost as exhaust heat, the amount of energy actually transferred from the steam to the turbine blades and finally the amount of energy lost in bearing friction of the turbine/generator assembly.

Anyway, sorry I actually asked for more information. Next time I’ll try and do what you do in life, …blindly accept whatever someone tells me.

-Suntan


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By pjpizza on 11/21/2008 3:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
Alright flamegirl, take a time out and stop rolling your eyes. theapparition already answered my question.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By tapa on 11/30/2008 10:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
I understand that this turbine's overall efficiency is only better than competition because it expands the range of wind speeds for normal operation. That 90% figure probably refers to the generator. And 90% isn't high for electrical machines.


Is this really new?
By PrinceGaz on 11/19/2008 3:55:50 PM , Rating: 3
The idea of adjusting the effective field-strength for optimal efficiency in traction motors has been around (and in use) for decades. At low speeds you use maximum field strength (the equivalent of a low gear) and at high speeds you use a much weaker field (the equivalent of a high gear). This allows the motor to work optimally across a wide range of speeds with a relatively steady voltage and current, by keeping the back emf generated by the motor at near the ideal level regardless of speed.

Back in the 1950's and 60's before modern electronic control systems were available, this field-strength switching was essential to the efficient transfer of power from the engine to the wheels of diesel-electric locomotives.

Thats basically what this wind-turbine alternator (or generator) is doing-- adjusting the field strength by opening or closing connections to windings, but in this case to keep the speed constant but increase the back emf generated by the motor, as the wind increases. Seems like fairly basic stuff which I'm surprised wasn't being used.




RE: Is this really new?
By Murloc on 11/19/2008 4:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't you propose this then? XD
I think it needed some developing for this application, maybe they are working on it from a long time but didn't want to tell everyone what they're doing.


RE: Is this really new?
By randomly on 11/19/2008 7:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
It does seem fairly obvious, but that's usually the hallmark of a good invention. I think the new idea here is that by using multiple switched generator windings they can achieve similar results to varying the field magnet current as used in diesel-electric systems. However they use permanent magnets instead of running current through a field coil, thus increasing efficiency and reliability ( no commutators needed).

It's essentially a series of generators stacked on the same shaft, the more torque that's available from stronger wind the more of them you can turn on.

It'll be interesting to see what difference in makes in a real system.


RE: Is this really new?
By PrinceGaz on 11/20/2008 2:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed, all the best inventions seem so obvious after someone else thought of it, but in this case, I am amazed that none of the big corporations involved with developing the wind turbines and generators didn't even consider altering the field-strength in the alternator (which is what they are doing by switching in out out additional coils) in order to change the mechanical load on the turbine rotor so it was always rotating at optimal speed regardless of wind strength.

It's not so much a case of seeming fairly obvious after the invention, I'd say it's a case of those involved with wind-turbine design lacking a broad knowledge of motor and alternator function and deciding a variable manual (or possibly hydraulic) transmission is the most efficient way of converting the mechanical energy to electrical energy. I find it hard to believe that no-one in any company involved in the development of wind turbines was aware of just how easy it is to adjust the load of an alternator by switching windings in or out.

As someone said in an earlier post, this is fairly basic physics that should be taught pretty early on in most countries. Take a small DC electric motor that isn't connected to anything, and see how hard it is to spin it with your hand. Now short-circuit the connections to it, and you'll find it is much harder to spin (but that an ammeter connected instead will register the current produced).


Slightly Confused
By JLL55 on 11/19/2008 2:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
I tried reading the original article and I am confused. Could someone explain to me how you can "turn off" a copper wire since the resistance is due to the inductive effect of flux from a changing magnetic field. It seems really cool and the applications can be far reaching, I am just confused as to how it really works. Any help would be great.

Thanks!




RE: Slightly Confused
By phxfreddy on 11/19/2008 2:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
Simply leave the coil open. If you prevent current flow in the coil then it does not resist movement.

You can see this in person with a dc motor. Leave the leads open and spin the shaft with your fingers. Then twist the leads together and twist again. You will see it require more force.


RE: Slightly Confused
By AmazighQ on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Slightly Confused
By sld on 11/20/2008 7:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
Lenz's Law. Stuff I actually liked studying back in high school.


NO ... Power is not the unit
By Shadowself on 11/19/2008 5:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, it is able to extend the peak efficiency range significantly, balancing gusts and lulls, and producing, over the course of the year, up to 50 percent more power.

Ed Nowicki, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Calgary who consulted on the project said some locations could even see their power output double.


The proper -- and much more accurate thing to say (if true) -- is that it allows 50% more ENERGY to be created and up to twice as much ENERGY to be created. You can always pick a point in the operating environment where there just happens to be 50% or 100% more POWER created while ignoring the possible fact that at other points there is 50% or 90% less POWER created.

The critical point is how much total energy the system would put out over the course of a year or more.




By foolsgambit11 on 11/19/2008 7:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
The first paragraph says 'over the course of the year', that is, 50% more power over the course of the year. It's like a word problem.

power * time = energy, AND
year = unit of time, AND
50% more power over the course of the year =
50% more power during the year =
50% more (power during the year) =
50% more (power * year) =
50% more (energy)
QED

I have no excuses for the second paragraph, unless Mr. Nowicki actually meant to say that certain locations could see their instantaneous power output double at some time under some conditions. Who knows, maybe he meant that, and you've outed him for trying to be deceptive. But I think he meant energy, and said power, since, for the layperson, there's no need to distinguish between the two. Everybody make fun of Ed Nowicki for being imprecise! Boo! Boo!


RE: NO ... Power is not the unit
By Suntan on 11/19/2008 9:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
<quotejavascript:insertText('ctl00_MainContent_t xtBody',' ',' ');>The proper -- and much more accurate thing to say (if true) -- is that it allows 50% more ENERGY to be created and up to twice as much ENERGY to be created.

Energy... ...to be created???

No sir, that sentence is not proper, and is actually one of the most inaccurate statements a person could make.

-Suntan


thanks to == due to
By phxfreddy on 11/19/2008 2:51:10 PM , Rating: 1
the phrase "thanks to" or "looking to" ...you guys could write an entire block with just these 2 phrases thanks to the fact you look to use them at every turn.




RE: thanks to == due to
By rzrshrp on 11/19/2008 3:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Thanks to" is used exactly once in this article. I guess you think that once is one too many? Why does it irk you so much?


RE: thanks to == due to
By marvdmartian on 11/19/2008 4:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but let's not forget to say thanks to phxfreddy for pointing this out! ;)


Doing the math...
By Doormat on 11/19/2008 11:37:43 PM , Rating: 4
Wind has an average installed per kW cost of $1750 or so (as of 2006). So a 1.5MW turbine is about $2.625M installed. That 1.5MW turbine would generate about 4,000MWh/yr at a 30% capacity factor. If this ups the capacity factor to 45% (a 50% increase like the article states), then it'll generate 6,000MWh/yr. The extra 2,000MWh/yr is worth about $100,000/yr ($50/MWh), or $2M over 20 years. Even if only provides a 25% boost, its an extra $1M over the course of 20 years.

Granted this doesn't factor in any additional cost savings or cost penalties of additional maintenance (though I would expect that the cost would go down, considering that mechanical gearbox gets really loud and needs to be overhauled or replaced every 5 years).

This would have a huge impact in terms of ROI. Will it live up to the hype though...




Wind & Cars
By deforestsd on 11/21/2008 1:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no engineer or scientist but enjoy science & Tech. Maybe it's already been done but I've always wondered why wind tech hasn't been applied to cars. They create their own wind source so it seems like something could be developed to take advantage of it. Comments?




RE: Wind & Cars
By Jim28 on 11/24/2008 5:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
it would create drag. The energy required to compensate for the increased drag would be more than any power recovered from the wind turbine.


All well and good...
By Amiga500 on 11/20/2008 7:21:17 AM , Rating: 1
A nice improvement in efficiency.

However, this doesn't tackle the real problem of wind turbines, that is:

no wind = no electricity = redundancy in the grid to cope with wind-out situations

Indeed, with this increased energy efficiency, the variance in power supply will only increase.




RE: All well and good...
By Shmak on 11/20/2008 3:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes people all like to point at countries like Denmark who pull something like 15% of their power from turbines and say, "why can't everybody do that?" not thinking about their surrounding neighbors who cover their grid when the wind isn't blowing.

I've said it before, but the real problem facing renewable energy is not efficiency, its storage. Scientists need to make advancements in batteries, not renewable power generation.

I don't mean to denigrate this achievement. Making things efficient is a worthwhile goal. Looking at the big picture though, better batteries will solve all our problems.


Nothing new
By nojoodt on 11/20/2008 1:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
"Electrical transmissions" for wind turbines have existed for quite a while.

WIth gearless permament magnet generators and inverters it's possible to achieve 90-95 % efficiency from 20 to 100 % load.

Companies like The Switch and Vacon have systems up to 3 - 6 MW.




I'm counting...
By DeepBlue1975 on 11/20/2008 6:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
The time till a new article from Masher appears, talking about how some new breakthroughs allow nuclear reactors to get their efficiency up even more than what they already are.

I'll be really suprised the day that someone who isn't Jason writes a favorable article about windmills in DT. :)




By Fleataxi on 11/27/2008 2:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of variable pitch props, use fixed pitch props and a CVT (Constantly Variable Transmission) that varies the size of the pulley on a V-belt connecting the blades to the generator.

The CVT moderates the pulley speed based on rpm. As the generator load increases, and reduces RPM, the CVT compensates by going to a lower gear.

This would help in areas where there's a lot of wind, but it's variable.

That would moderate the RPM of the generator, keeping it at its optimum RPM for each stage of the generator, minimizing the need for switching.

Fleataxi




Manufacturers Advertisement...
By MrBlastman on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
By axeman1957 on 11/19/2008 4:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
Was the point of all that "wind power kills birds and purees the atmosphere?"


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By MrBlastman on 11/19/2008 4:18:25 PM , Rating: 3
Boy, the tolerance for satire today is pretty slim. This was in no way a protest towards turbines - just an attempt at a little humor. :)


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2008 4:21:42 PM , Rating: 1
I found it hilarious.


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2008 4:21:05 PM , Rating: 1
ROFL!

I don't know if you wrote that because you don't like how wind power can possibly kill birds, but it was f*ing funny.


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By MrBlastman on 11/19/2008 5:17:32 PM , Rating: 4
Nah, I hate birds. I really do. I found an opportunity to vividly display my daily musings on our avian friends.

Look at it this way - if we were able to collect all of the secretions from our blender-based power plants, people with iron defficiencies would be able to save a tremendous amount of money on their monthly supply. We wouldn't have to mine for it anymore, nor would they have to spend a great deal of money on extracting, refining and purifying the ore.

a. Scrape up (or mop up) the blood and fill up buckets with it
b. Dump buckets in mass incinerator array to burn off all fluids leaving a iron/carbon mulch
c. Employ a magnetic wand to collect iron dust
d. Make pills out of iron dust
e. Profit

Thanks birds!

THIS is the kind of creative economics we need right now to bring our country out of a recession. It is ideas like this that will lead to the next Tycoon in the line of the Rockefellers and Vanderbuilts. Just think of the dollars to be had... while billing people for the power you generate. The net cost to the taxpayer - zero! It is a money machine. :)

Fishermen will rejoice too as they'll have more worms to fish with. Farmers will profit from it also because they will have more enriched soil due to the worm production. Cats will be - well, happy and sad I suppose. Happy to witness the bird-a-lation, sad to lose out a meal, but happy to find rodent populations will increase as an unforseen side effect. Look, this isn't just a solution, it is a whole new ecosystem. :)


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By foolsgambit11 on 11/19/2008 7:34:32 PM , Rating: 5
Way too many steps, I prefer:

a. Kill Birds
b. ???
c. Profit


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By xsilver on 11/19/2008 11:17:04 PM , Rating: 4
still too many steps.

a. profit

wait - isnt that how we got into the economic mess in the first place?? :)


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By Ticholo on 11/20/2008 7:33:36 AM , Rating: 2
I believe that involved inverting the order of those steps.

a. Profit
b. ???
c. Kill _____(insert living thing)

b. can also be broken down into other sub-steps, like:

b. ???
b.1. ??!
b.2. !!!
b.3. $#&@

and so on.


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By BansheeX on 11/20/2008 10:52:31 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, government profit, social engineering, and central planning is definitely what got us here. We've got a non-market determined money, fixed non-market determined interest rates, a ban on competing currencies, federally insured deposits to remove depositor risk, bailouts for banks to remove their disincentive for high leverage, declaring lending standards discriminatory with the community reinvestment act, trying to increase home ownership with government sponsored enterprises Fannie and Freddie in the name of social progress, subsidizing agribusiness with billions in forcibly appropriated money in exchange for campaign financing, government managed retirement that is actually an unsustainable ponzi scheme, government managed health care that is also a ponzi scheme, and last but not least, an income tax that discriminates based on income, marital status, children, the type of marriage, investment choices and causes so much infighting that people are too distracted to notice anything else. And what does the federal income tax finance for all its troubles? Failed socialist departments that have no constitutional backing and a totally unnecessary military empire around the globe.


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By Shmak on 11/20/2008 3:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
/forwarded to barack@obama.gov


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By akdbs3710 on 11/19/2008 4:50:00 PM , Rating: 3
How many birds are killed by cats each year in the US? The article below has some estimates.

http://birdchaser.blogspot.com/2008/03/cats-kill-o...

If we're that worried about birds, then shouldn't we kill all of the outdoor cats in the US?

Off to invest in puppy mills before the market takes off!


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By MrBlastman on 11/19/2008 5:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
Take notice of the name of the guy who approved of the message - and say it back to yourself a few times... ;)

You must look *deep* into the message and the humor will jump right out. :P


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By akdbs3710 on 11/19/2008 5:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
Hah! Very sly! Thanks for pointing that out!


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By lco45 on 11/20/2008 4:09:36 AM , Rating: 4
Hey forget the cats, what about Colonel Sanders? Now that guy has killed some birds...

Luke


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By RU482 on 11/19/2008 5:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Iowa, home of thousands of wind turbines.
There is no shortage of birds here


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By TheSpaniard on 11/20/2008 8:07:15 AM , Rating: 2
I just moved to Iowa and you guys have way fewer birds than Florida


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By FITCamaro on 11/20/2008 8:41:26 AM , Rating: 5
That's because not even birds want to live in Iowa.


RE: Manufacturers Advertisement...
By bridgeman on 11/19/2008 6:33:19 PM , Rating: 1
Bob's cousin Tommy T. Cat has been far more successful. For more information about that stud bull, that he cat, see Sailing the Seas of Cheese by L. Claypool et al.


By Groovester on 11/19/2008 11:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
It appears that it is taken for granted that this technical improvement would be used for a bladed wind turbine, but it could be used in a Magenn rotary wind turbine as well. See http://www.magenn.com/. In fact, since the Magenn turbine is held aloft using helium, any weight savings would be an asset for this system.

If you are an anti-avariarian, then the Magenn turbine is not for you.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki