This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 59.92.217.70 (talk) at 09:05, 3 July 2013 (→Talkback). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:05, 3 July 2013 by 59.92.217.70 (talk) (→Talkback)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
Hello, M S DIVEKAR, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Misplaced Pages
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Hello, I'm Arc de Ciel. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Betz' law because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Another response for you on the Betz' Law issue. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Help out Talk:Divekar I do accept that formula computation at 21 on page 25 is alright and gives Cp = 16/27.Here the authors - and myself did realize that we had made a mistake of not taking into consideration change in area of cross section of the wind along the path.
So the authors proceed to make corrections are recomputed by going on page 26, the authors derive Pideal as = (8/9)*(1/2)*ρ*S1*(V1^3).
Now refer to diagram at Fig 1 on page 21 where S1 is area through which wind is captured at velocity V1. So far it is fine.
Then the author uses a correction factor for area of the wind to say S = 3/2* S1 at the top of page 27. Then P ideal is recomputed as = (16/27)*(12)*S* (V1^3). Again referring to the fig 1, S – is area where the turbine blade is supposed to be located (If I change the turbine blade design – innovatively from S1 end to S2 end- this assumption is not valid), while velocity is at input end.
So are we using different factors taking area at one point and velocity along another point on the path of the wind- to justify BETZ’s formula of Cp= 16/27 ???? This is scientifically incorrect.
I personally feel that we should stop at Pideal = (8/9)*(1/2)*ρ*S1*(V1^3) which means we can extract 88.88 % of the power in the wind captured and not some 16/27 =59.26%.
May be you could consult experts and put my comments as foot note on the Misplaced Pages.