Skip to main content

Australian answer to nuclear power

Quoting from here:

His former clients have run out of puff, but Arthur O’Connor hopes his new invention does not.

The ex-funeral director has developed a slient, micro-wind [1m diameter] turbine that could revolutionise sustainable energy in Australia.

Mr O’Connor, who left school at 14, said the internationally patented device could potentially halve residential electricity bills.

He has had no engineering training and spent 23 years fine-tuning the Hush Energy turbine.

“If we had one of these on every home we wouldn’t need to worry about nuclear power or anything,” Mr O’Connor said.

...now quoting from here:

Power output for the turbine has resulted in much higher power generation than previously recorded. With a wind speed of 15 metres per second (54 km/hour), output has increased from approximately 680 watts to 915 watts, based on a 1 metre diameter model.

One of the best results of the testing was the increase in the performance of the turbine in moving towards higher efficiencies in producing power. The previous “coefficient of performance” (Cp) measurement reached a maximum of 0.42; this time the maximum result was 0.51. This is the result that has the O’Connor Hush Turbine’s developer, Arthur O’Connor, extremely excited.

...and WRT the Cp, other wind sites note 0.35 as “for a good design” and considering that it’s facing a “Betz limit” at 0.593, 0.51’s an impressive performance for something not built by the USAF (-: and I take it as read that it would use a lot less fuel :-) especially something so quiet and robust.

Unfortunately, it has international patents on it (it’s a mechanical invention, what else is the guy to do?) but on the other hand is available up to 5m diameter, which model produces 17kW with the old-style electronics (which implies a 35% increase under the new, or roughly 23kW) before 15m/s winds.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...