http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html  is a link which has some informative diagrams and wind tunnel photos showing the flow laminations of air past a cylinder and a sphere.   The "wind spire" is essentially a vertical cylinder.   Air directly downstream and for the full 180+ degrees (looking down from above) behind the vertical cylinder will be in stalled turbulence.  This is an issue with this design which I don't believe has been adequately addressed.  Please provide a diagram of the air flow behind the spire.  I noticed that in the wind flow diagram in the upper RH corner of the main display photo above,  there are no flow lines downstream of the tower.  That's a critical  omission - for the turbine blades to extract energy from the air the decellerated air downstream from the turbine blades must be flowing and flowing with minimal turbulence. ..

Jeff,

I think that Dr. Rashidi's computer modeling photo

shows very much the same results as your Princeton drawings...

Just my opinion on this, but you might wish to contact Dr. Rashidi directly

for any further information on the technical side of this topic, as I doubt

Norm is in possession of the information that you are asking for.

Either way, it seems that there is an increase in interest in wind power in Cleveland,

which I think is a good thing. You might remember they make both Fords and

Chevy's in D-troit, even though the owners of those cars will swear that the

other manufacturer's product is a piece of fecal material.

Cheers,

Bill

Norm,

We have no idea what the so called Cleveland Wind Working Group does, thinks, or plans, do we?  Do they have a web site where they put up research results, thoughts, and anemometer readings?  There’s nothing on the Cleveland Foundation web site. What’s going on on the 39th floor of Key? What’s GE got up their sleeve.  Is this a public process?  Meeting minutes? “about 10 turbines 3 miles out from Cleveland in Lake Erie”  that’s their only press release as far as I know.  What are their public goals, what are their private goals?

With regard to the "wind spire":  For under $10K a "wind spire" test prototype can be built using  two of the Whisper turbines (I blogged here http://realneo.us/blog/jeff-buster/wind-turbines-sold-in-big-box-stores  last summer about Whisper - the smaller output units are $1k each, and the larger output units are $3k each).  Buy 2 small ones.   Bend 2 hoops (from wood strapping screwed together in a 20' – or whatever diameter - circle)  stretch -on a back and forth bias (like the old bias ply tire cores were made) - white shrink wrap  (used to winterize boats in storage )  over the wood frames making a sort of concave exterior walled toroid.  Cover the open toroid ends with plywood or shrink wrap.  Stick it up on a flat roof.   Buy a data logger, a few cheap anemometers, and the requisite KWH and other output sensors.  Stick one Whisper unit on the side of the concave toriod, and put the other (control) somewhere else (similarly wind flow situated) on the roof with comparable anemometers, etc.  Let’s see what develops on the KWH meters.

The other aspects of the spire design  I  don't understand  are:  1. why the  unit is  helical instead of stacked concave donuts  -  which would be simpler to manufacture and erect than working with the thread shaped helix.  2. how the small turbines orient/azimuth  to the prevailing/changing wind direction. 

I am also concerned, (even if there is the suggested usable wind acceleration around the perimeter of the structure), that  the cost – and complexity of the numerous small turbines - of the fixed structure will be greater than the cost of installing more/larger turbines to gain the same energy output.  

 I do compliment Mr. Cironi for his very polished computer generated presentation materials, and for his marketing acumen.

From my interpretation of what I heard  Mr. Stuebi say in public in January at Levin with Mr. Richard, CF has reviewed and passed on this design – no funding there.  How about GEO?  Any interest?  Fletcher, Steve, AAron, please fill us in.