22 posts • Page **1** of **1**

One day the wind blows constantly at 5 m/s for 24 hours. The next day it blows at 3 m/s for 12 hours, and 7 m/s for the other 12 hours. What is the difference in the average maximum available power for each day?

- windgat
- Founding member
**Posts:**558**Joined:**Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am**Location:**Cape Town, South Africa

OK,

Judging by this (real) power curve, the average maximum power @ 7m/s over 24 hrs = 300Watt.

At 3m/s over 12 hrs the average maximum power = 50 Watt, and at 10 m/s over 12 hrs = 375 Watt.

The average over 24 hrs is therefore:(50x12 + 375x12)/24 = 212.5 Watt.

The difference is 87.5 Watt less.

Judging by this (real) power curve, the average maximum power @ 7m/s over 24 hrs = 300Watt.

At 3m/s over 12 hrs the average maximum power = 50 Watt, and at 10 m/s over 12 hrs = 375 Watt.

The average over 24 hrs is therefore:(50x12 + 375x12)/24 = 212.5 Watt.

The difference is 87.5 Watt less.

Regards

Cor

Cor

- Greystoke
- Hyper active member
**Posts:**180**Joined:**Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:10 am**Location:**Port Elizabeth, South Africa

Why do you refer to 10 m/s

The point of the speeds given is that the average wind speed is the same on both days...

The point of the speeds given is that the average wind speed is the same on both days...

- windgat
- Founding member
**Posts:**558**Joined:**Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am**Location:**Cape Town, South Africa

I forgot my glasses

Lets try this again:

Power @ 5m/s = 125 Watt 24 hrs

Power @ 7m/s = 300 Watt 12 hrs

Power @ 3m/s = 50 Watt 12 hrs

Average power = 175 Watt

Difference = 50 Watt more on day 2.

Lets try this again:

Power @ 5m/s = 125 Watt 24 hrs

Power @ 7m/s = 300 Watt 12 hrs

Power @ 3m/s = 50 Watt 12 hrs

Average power = 175 Watt

Difference = 50 Watt more on day 2.

Regards

Cor

Cor

- Greystoke
- Hyper active member
**Posts:**180**Joined:**Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:10 am**Location:**Port Elizabeth, South Africa

So you get 40% more power on day 2.

Using the approximate equation (given in my newsletter)

max P = r squared x v cubed

Using a radius r = 1, on day one, average max power is 125W.

On day 2, average for first 12 hours is 27W, and for the next 12 hours, 343 watts, so the average max power is 185W.

60W more is 48% more on day 2.

Any suggestions as to why the theoretical difference is greater than the difference according to that (real) graph?

Using the approximate equation (given in my newsletter)

max P = r squared x v cubed

Using a radius r = 1, on day one, average max power is 125W.

On day 2, average for first 12 hours is 27W, and for the next 12 hours, 343 watts, so the average max power is 185W.

60W more is 48% more on day 2.

Any suggestions as to why the theoretical difference is greater than the difference according to that (real) graph?

- windgat
- Founding member
**Posts:**558**Joined:**Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am**Location:**Cape Town, South Africa

The relationship is not linear. The unit generates relatively more power at higher speeds.

Regards

Cor

Cor

- Greystoke
- Hyper active member
**Posts:**180**Joined:**Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:10 am**Location:**Port Elizabeth, South Africa

Get those glasses out

The theoretical formula is a cubed relationship - nothing linear there!

The theoretical formula is a cubed relationship - nothing linear there!

- windgat
- Founding member
**Posts:**558**Joined:**Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am**Location:**Cape Town, South Africa

Who's glasses?windgat wrote:Get those glasses out

I said the relationship is NOT linear.

Regards

Cor

Cor

- Greystoke
- Hyper active member
**Posts:**180**Joined:**Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:10 am**Location:**Port Elizabeth, South Africa

The (real) graph, is not linear, the formula is not linear, nothing is linear!

Let me rephrase:

Any suggestions as to why the theoretical difference between the two days from the non-linear formula is greater than the difference according to that (real) non-linear graph?

- windgat
- Founding member
**Posts:**558**Joined:**Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am**Location:**Cape Town, South Africa

OK,

I misunderstood.

I think the main reason that the real graph gives a different answer is the fact that it does not follow the theory, mostly because the graph is offset from zero.

It follows a third order curve alright, but it appears to have been moved to the right of the graph (it tends to minimize @ v=±2m/s. In other words: the turbine stops below that windspeed)

This can be translated in the theory by a power loss at low speeds, but which loses its significance at the higher speeds. I think the loss is about 25Watt.

I misunderstood.

I think the main reason that the real graph gives a different answer is the fact that it does not follow the theory, mostly because the graph is offset from zero.

It follows a third order curve alright, but it appears to have been moved to the right of the graph (it tends to minimize @ v=±2m/s. In other words: the turbine stops below that windspeed)

This can be translated in the theory by a power loss at low speeds, but which loses its significance at the higher speeds. I think the loss is about 25Watt.

Regards

Cor

Cor

- Greystoke
- Hyper active member
**Posts:**180**Joined:**Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:10 am**Location:**Port Elizabeth, South Africa

I have been trying some curve fitting, with some puzzling results.

Graph says 50W for 3m/s. using the approx. formula for max power,

P = r^2 x v^3

r^2 = 50/27 = 1.8519

So blades must have a minimum of 1.36m radius.

Given that, the (real) graph shows half the theoretical max power at 6m/s.

If you tell me the (real) blade radius, then I will post the graphs.

Graph says 50W for 3m/s. using the approx. formula for max power,

P = r^2 x v^3

r^2 = 50/27 = 1.8519

So blades must have a minimum of 1.36m radius.

Given that, the (real) graph shows half the theoretical max power at 6m/s.

If you tell me the (real) blade radius, then I will post the graphs.

- windgat
- Founding member
**Posts:**558**Joined:**Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am**Location:**Cape Town, South Africa

Can't tell. That info is not given, but I understand your reservations.

My problem with the theoretical formula is the fact that it is based on the kinetic energy of a moving body, ie: ½mv², in which m = the mass of the moving air, and v = the speed of the air.

But the only way in which this energy is tranferred to electrical energy is if the air stops moving AFTER the turbine, having expended ALL its energy. Of course that is not the case, but we'll never know the true story as to what really happened.

50 Watt @ 3m/s (and nothing before that) is indeed strange, particularly if the unit generates only 300 Watt @ 7m/s. It doesn't gell. But then, . . . I've seen a number of these curves, and most leave some questions. I also think a lot depends on the shape of the vanes.

My problem with the theoretical formula is the fact that it is based on the kinetic energy of a moving body, ie: ½mv², in which m = the mass of the moving air, and v = the speed of the air.

But the only way in which this energy is tranferred to electrical energy is if the air stops moving AFTER the turbine, having expended ALL its energy. Of course that is not the case, but we'll never know the true story as to what really happened.

50 Watt @ 3m/s (and nothing before that) is indeed strange, particularly if the unit generates only 300 Watt @ 7m/s. It doesn't gell. But then, . . . I've seen a number of these curves, and most leave some questions. I also think a lot depends on the shape of the vanes.

Regards

Cor

Cor

- Greystoke
- Hyper active member
**Posts:**180**Joined:**Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:10 am**Location:**Port Elizabeth, South Africa

The full formula is:

P = 0.59 x 0.6 x pi x r^2 x v^3

so

P = 1.11 * r^2 x v^3

or approx:

P = r^2 x v^3.

So the Betz limit is taken into account already, i.e. I am not assuming the air stops behind the turbine!

P = 0.59 x 0.6 x pi x r^2 x v^3

so

P = 1.11 * r^2 x v^3

or approx:

P = r^2 x v^3.

So the Betz limit is taken into account already, i.e. I am not assuming the air stops behind the turbine!

- windgat
- Founding member
**Posts:**558**Joined:**Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am**Location:**Cape Town, South Africa

Yes,

I understand that 0.59 is the Betz correction factor. Without it the formula would read: 0.6?r²v³, which represents the kinetic energy of a moving body (the flowing air), ie: ½mv².

Proof:

½mv² = ½1.22?r²v(=mass of the air through the turbine per second)v² = 0.6?r²v³

The Bletz derivation is quite complicated and these days done with computors. 0.59 does not take into account losses due to friction or Eddy currents, complicated blade shapes, etc. It is just a good average

I understand that 0.59 is the Betz correction factor. Without it the formula would read: 0.6?r²v³, which represents the kinetic energy of a moving body (the flowing air), ie: ½mv².

Proof:

½mv² = ½1.22?r²v(=mass of the air through the turbine per second)v² = 0.6?r²v³

The Bletz derivation is quite complicated and these days done with computors. 0.59 does not take into account losses due to friction or Eddy currents, complicated blade shapes, etc. It is just a good average

Regards

Cor

Cor

- Greystoke
- Hyper active member
**Posts:**180**Joined:**Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:10 am**Location:**Port Elizabeth, South Africa

Station Name Mean (m/s)

BLOEMFONTEIN - STAD 3.39

BLOEMFONTEIN WO 3.77

FICKSBURG 3.23

VAN REENEN 4.27

VREDE 3.60

WELKOM 4.32

WEPENER 2.67

IRENE WO 3.50

JHB BOT TUINE 2.68

JOHANNESBURG INT WO 4.08

PRETORIA UNISA 2.98

PRETORIA WO 2.40

SPRINGS 2.50

VEREENIGING 3.65

CHARTERS CREEK 4.12

DURBAN WO 5.06

GAINTS CASTLE 13.94

GREYTOWN 5.00

IXOPO 5.82

LADYSMITH 2.80

MARGATE 4.15

MBAZWANA AIRFIELD 3.13

MTUNZINI 3.71

NEWCASTLE 3.28

ORIBI AIRPORT 2.92

PADDOCK 4.02

PIETERMARITZBURG 1.81

PONGOLA 2.14

PORT EDWARD 2.86

SEZELA 3.82

ULUNDI 3.50

VIRGINIA 3.80

VRYHEID 2.78

ERMELO WO 5.24

KOMATIDRAAI 2.33

NELSPRUIT 2.17

PIET RETIEF 3.42

RIETVALLEI 3.64

STANDERTON 3.44

WITBANK 4.27

BLOEMHOF 3.26

KLERKSDORP 3.72

LICHTENBURG 3.55

MAFIKENG WO 4.55

POMFRET 4.79

POTCHEFSTROOM 3.57

RUSTENBURG 2.36

PILANESBERG 4.08

TAUNG 2.91

ALEXANDERBAAI 4.80

BRANDVLEI 5.27

CALVINIA WO 4.76

DE AAR WO 6.88

KATHU 3.84

KIMBERLEY WO 4.58

KOINGNAAS 6.20

NOUPOORT 5.60

POSTMASBURG 4.91

PRIESKA 3.75

SPRINGBOK WO 8.27

UPINGTON WO 4.36

VAN ZYLSRUS 2.62

VIOOLSDRIF 2.95

ALLDAYS 3.08

CUMBERLAND 2.41

DOORNLAAGTE 2.25

ELLISRAS 2.33

GRENSHOEK TZANEEN 2.22

HOEDSPRUIT 4.42

MARKEN 3.26

PIETERSBURG WO 4.42

POTGIETERSRUS 3.11

THABAZIMBI 2.59

THOHOYANDOU WO 2.84

TSHIPISE 2.67

BEAUFORT-WES 5.04

CAPE TOWN TABLE BAY 4.10

CAPE TOWN WO 6.63

CERES EXCELSIOR 2.90

GEELBEK 5.62

GEORGE WO 3.00

HERMANUS 3.79

KNYSNA 1.74

LAINGSBURG 3.84

LAMBERTSBAAI NORTIER 4.22

LANGEBAANWEG WO 6.88

MALMESBURY 4.14

PAARL 3.27

PLETTENBERGBAAI 2.97

PORTERVILLE 4.03

RIVIERSONDEREND TYGERHOEK 2.86

ROBBENEILAND 3.07

SIMONSTAD KAAPPUNT 6.65

STILBAAI 4.13

STRAND 3.55

STRUISBAAI 3.73

VILLIERSDORP VYEBOOM 2.67

WORCESTER 3.09

BLOEMFONTEIN - STAD 3.39

BLOEMFONTEIN WO 3.77

FICKSBURG 3.23

VAN REENEN 4.27

VREDE 3.60

WELKOM 4.32

WEPENER 2.67

IRENE WO 3.50

JHB BOT TUINE 2.68

JOHANNESBURG INT WO 4.08

PRETORIA UNISA 2.98

PRETORIA WO 2.40

SPRINGS 2.50

VEREENIGING 3.65

CHARTERS CREEK 4.12

DURBAN WO 5.06

GAINTS CASTLE 13.94

GREYTOWN 5.00

IXOPO 5.82

LADYSMITH 2.80

MARGATE 4.15

MBAZWANA AIRFIELD 3.13

MTUNZINI 3.71

NEWCASTLE 3.28

ORIBI AIRPORT 2.92

PADDOCK 4.02

PIETERMARITZBURG 1.81

PONGOLA 2.14

PORT EDWARD 2.86

SEZELA 3.82

ULUNDI 3.50

VIRGINIA 3.80

VRYHEID 2.78

ERMELO WO 5.24

KOMATIDRAAI 2.33

NELSPRUIT 2.17

PIET RETIEF 3.42

RIETVALLEI 3.64

STANDERTON 3.44

WITBANK 4.27

BLOEMHOF 3.26

KLERKSDORP 3.72

LICHTENBURG 3.55

MAFIKENG WO 4.55

POMFRET 4.79

POTCHEFSTROOM 3.57

RUSTENBURG 2.36

PILANESBERG 4.08

TAUNG 2.91

ALEXANDERBAAI 4.80

BRANDVLEI 5.27

CALVINIA WO 4.76

DE AAR WO 6.88

KATHU 3.84

KIMBERLEY WO 4.58

KOINGNAAS 6.20

NOUPOORT 5.60

POSTMASBURG 4.91

PRIESKA 3.75

SPRINGBOK WO 8.27

UPINGTON WO 4.36

VAN ZYLSRUS 2.62

VIOOLSDRIF 2.95

ALLDAYS 3.08

CUMBERLAND 2.41

DOORNLAAGTE 2.25

ELLISRAS 2.33

GRENSHOEK TZANEEN 2.22

HOEDSPRUIT 4.42

MARKEN 3.26

PIETERSBURG WO 4.42

POTGIETERSRUS 3.11

THABAZIMBI 2.59

THOHOYANDOU WO 2.84

TSHIPISE 2.67

BEAUFORT-WES 5.04

CAPE TOWN TABLE BAY 4.10

CAPE TOWN WO 6.63

CERES EXCELSIOR 2.90

GEELBEK 5.62

GEORGE WO 3.00

HERMANUS 3.79

KNYSNA 1.74

LAINGSBURG 3.84

LAMBERTSBAAI NORTIER 4.22

LANGEBAANWEG WO 6.88

MALMESBURY 4.14

PAARL 3.27

PLETTENBERGBAAI 2.97

PORTERVILLE 4.03

RIVIERSONDEREND TYGERHOEK 2.86

ROBBENEILAND 3.07

SIMONSTAD KAAPPUNT 6.65

STILBAAI 4.13

STRAND 3.55

STRUISBAAI 3.73

VILLIERSDORP VYEBOOM 2.67

WORCESTER 3.09

- aero energy
- Active member
**Posts:**22**Joined:**Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:04 am

Hi guys,

I needed to know how much power I can expect from the turbine I'm planning to make. For that purpose I needed a wind speed distribution graph (Weibull graph) for the PE area. It's a bit difficult to get, but . . with some "poetic license" I managed to get something that can be regarded as reasonably accurate.

The figure of 311 Watt is an average level which I can expect to be exceeded 50% of the time.

I needed to know how much power I can expect from the turbine I'm planning to make. For that purpose I needed a wind speed distribution graph (Weibull graph) for the PE area. It's a bit difficult to get, but . . with some "poetic license" I managed to get something that can be regarded as reasonably accurate.

The figure of 311 Watt is an average level which I can expect to be exceeded 50% of the time.

Regards

Cor

Cor

- Greystoke
- Hyper active member
**Posts:**180**Joined:**Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:10 am**Location:**Port Elizabeth, South Africa

There is a standard approximate factor (like maybe 1.3? wild guess...) I saw somewhere once (sorry, can't remember...) which gives an expected power based on average wind speed. Some manufacturers use this to beef up their marketing figures, by multiplying the steady wind speed performance by this factor when quoting performance figures.

It would be interesting to see what you get if you multiply the occurence % by the wind speed cubed, and sum the results, then take a cubed root...

It would be interesting to see what you get if you multiply the occurence % by the wind speed cubed, and sum the results, then take a cubed root...

- windgat
- Founding member
**Posts:**558**Joined:**Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am**Location:**Cape Town, South Africa

Not a problem. It will end-up the same answer, I'm sure. I'll check it out now-now.windgat wrote: . . It would be interesting to see what you get if you multiply the occurence % by the wind speed cubed, and sum the results, then take a cubed root...

PS: Yep, . . . . aVerage windspeed becomes 4.3 m/s, which - with a 2m blade - will generate 311 Watt

Regards

Cor

Cor

- Greystoke
- Hyper active member
**Posts:**180**Joined:**Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:10 am**Location:**Port Elizabeth, South Africa

So did you calculate via the cube/cube root weighted average? I am interested int he difference between that and a linear average.

- windgat
- Founding member
**Posts:**558**Joined:**Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am**Location:**Cape Town, South Africa

Yes I did,

The linear (weighted) average of the windspeed is 3.5 m/s, and the "cube/cube root weighted average" is 4.3 m/s.

The linear (weighted) average of the windspeed is 3.5 m/s, and the "cube/cube root weighted average" is 4.3 m/s.

Regards

Cor

Cor

- Greystoke
- Hyper active member
**Posts:**180**Joined:**Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:10 am**Location:**Port Elizabeth, South Africa

Wow. So the 'wind speed factor' 1.2, and the 'power factor' is 1.85.

That may explain some of the claims by manufacturers about the power at the 'rated' wind speed!

That may explain some of the claims by manufacturers about the power at the 'rated' wind speed!

- windgat
- Founding member
**Posts:**558**Joined:**Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am**Location:**Cape Town, South Africa

Hi

I live in Willow Park Mannor Pretoria and have set up a 2kw wind turbine and +- 300 watt solar pannels (BUT THEY SEEM TO CHARGE AT 1.5 AMPS ON A HOT DAY ) and it is runing very well .I am running my lights and 2 TVs fridges off of it and i have not yet run out of power yet .I am currently converting our stove to gas asswell . I have 10 x deep cycle bateries = 120 volts DC converter 120 volts to 220 volts .if you want you are welcome to give me a call and come have a look at my setup for feedback .I am still in the experimental stages but it seems to ok. My cell is 0761256057 Jacques.

I hope this helps.

I live in Willow Park Mannor Pretoria and have set up a 2kw wind turbine and +- 300 watt solar pannels (BUT THEY SEEM TO CHARGE AT 1.5 AMPS ON A HOT DAY ) and it is runing very well .I am running my lights and 2 TVs fridges off of it and i have not yet run out of power yet .I am currently converting our stove to gas asswell . I have 10 x deep cycle bateries = 120 volts DC converter 120 volts to 220 volts .if you want you are welcome to give me a call and come have a look at my setup for feedback .I am still in the experimental stages but it seems to ok. My cell is 0761256057 Jacques.

I hope this helps.

- CaptainJakes
**Posts:**2**Joined:**Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:43 am

22 posts • Page **1** of **1**

Users browsing this forum: advarkTart, Bymnkano, Nifyheit, Sofegonge and 1 guest