> The objective of the present work is to determine the exact integrals for thrust and bending moment coefficients, serving as an addendum to Glauert's original work deriving optimum power coefficients.
I don't think any "wind energy possibilities" were expanded. It looks like the student author gave an elegant exact/analytic computation of measurements that are already computable numerically. Remember that all analytic results are always only "Platonic ideal" approximations of real-world engineering results. It's possible, though not at all mentioned in the paper, that these exact solutions might make engineering computations easier.
As always, the tell is that claims made about the paper, but not in the paper are not to be relied upon. Nowhere does the paper claim to measure any quantiative improvement in rotor performance, not even theoretically potential improvements.
> “Improving the power coefficient of a large wind turbine by just 1% has significant impacts on the energy production of a turbine, and that translates towards the other coefficients that we derived relations for,” she said. "A 1% improvement in power coefficient could notably increase a turbine’s energy output, potentially powering an entire neighborhood."
OP claims this was not written in the paper because it was speculative, not quantitative. Nowhere in the paper did she ever claim to have made an x% improvement over the original work. Not making such claim in the paper itself is a testimony on how the scientific method should be applied. Of course anyone would hope to make a difference in the world, of wind turbine blades, and her comment does just that.
Its just classic HN reductionalism to reduce certain unverifiable claims down to its core principle.
some more equally valid remarks:
"Moving wind turbines just 50km closer to power consumers would decrease transmission loss by .5%"
"Building 102 wind turbines would be a 2% increase over the planned 100"
This is exactly the type of content I love to hate on HN
She found a 1% increase in turbine blade efficiency, with a pencil, and her brain, in her
"spare" time.
Not just turbine blade, but any airofoil that is spinning.
And no one finds 1%, all at once anymore, or that was the conventional thinking, with the 1% or better days, long long gone, but here it is.
I love that she did that, but I really get annoyed by college PR departments reaching for practical applications for anything cool done in math. IMO refining a 100 year old problem is good enough for a press release!
> The objective of the present work is to determine the exact integrals for thrust and bending moment coefficients, serving as an addendum to Glauert's original work deriving optimum power coefficients.
I don't think any "wind energy possibilities" were expanded. It looks like the student author gave an elegant exact/analytic computation of measurements that are already computable numerically. Remember that all analytic results are always only "Platonic ideal" approximations of real-world engineering results. It's possible, though not at all mentioned in the paper, that these exact solutions might make engineering computations easier.
As always, the tell is that claims made about the paper, but not in the paper are not to be relied upon. Nowhere does the paper claim to measure any quantiative improvement in rotor performance, not even theoretically potential improvements.
> “Improving the power coefficient of a large wind turbine by just 1% has significant impacts on the energy production of a turbine, and that translates towards the other coefficients that we derived relations for,” she said. "A 1% improvement in power coefficient could notably increase a turbine’s energy output, potentially powering an entire neighborhood."
OP claims this was not written in the paper because it was speculative, not quantitative. Nowhere in the paper did she ever claim to have made an x% improvement over the original work. Not making such claim in the paper itself is a testimony on how the scientific method should be applied. Of course anyone would hope to make a difference in the world, of wind turbine blades, and her comment does just that.
Its just classic HN reductionalism to reduce certain unverifiable claims down to its core principle.
some more equally valid remarks:
"Moving wind turbines just 50km closer to power consumers would decrease transmission loss by .5%"
"Building 102 wind turbines would be a 2% increase over the planned 100"
This is exactly the type of content I love to hate on HN
Curious to see how the rest of the world benefits from this US Navy-supported research while the US itself withdraws from wind energy.
https://archive.is/PN2Of
I believe you misread the article, her current work is supported by the Navy, the subject of this article is not.
[flagged]
[dead]
She found a 1% increase in turbine blade efficiency, with a pencil, and her brain, in her "spare" time. Not just turbine blade, but any airofoil that is spinning. And no one finds 1%, all at once anymore, or that was the conventional thinking, with the 1% or better days, long long gone, but here it is.
I don't think she found a 1% increase in efficiency. I think she was being aspirational as to what her contribution could lead to.
[flagged]
I love that she did that, but I really get annoyed by college PR departments reaching for practical applications for anything cool done in math. IMO refining a 100 year old problem is good enough for a press release!
[dead]
It sounded like the subject of her thesis, suggested by her advisor, as opposed to a random fun problem.