Prev: Easy to prove invariant light speed in theory.
Next: The perpetual calendar
From: Darwin123 on 22 Feb 2010 13:27
On Feb 22, 12:33 am, none <n...(a)none.com> wrote:

> Actually, this is exactly what we were thinking might happen. But then
> that means we were right. We are (only) interested, in this experiment,
> in the total process of capture of wind energy and generation of
> electricity.If the windmill is more efficient at extracting energy from
> the wind when the resistance is lower, then that is what matters to the
> electric company and to your energy bill.
The judges may be dinging you on your particular definition of the
word "efficiency." So it is not a simple matter of the judges being
wrong or right. You may not have made your conclusions clear.
Instead of efficiency, use another concept. For example, you could
try to define "the wind advantage" as the the ratio between the power
output of the generator and the speed of the wind. According to what
you told us, the "wind advantage" should decrease with load
resistance.
If you explicitly, in black and white, define your metric, then
your conclusions better accepted. Once you define "wind efficiency"
clearly, then the judges will have to judge you according to your own
metric. Your conclusion could be "the wind advantage decreases with
load resistance." You may even try discussing why your chosen metric
is significant.
I don't know if I chose a good phrase for you. As far as I know,
there is no "wind advantage" defined in any physics textbook. You
should try to avoid phrases that may lead the educated judge to
conclude the metric is something else than what you say it is. So
choose your phrase and metric carefully.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Easy to prove invariant light speed in theory.
Next: The perpetual calendar