Comments on: Swift Turbine Specs Look Dubious http://scruss.com/blog/2005/05/09/swift-turbine-specs-look-dubious/ ourselves alone ‘gainst highwaymen and tories Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:25:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: <sup>ping trouble with a long spoon « We Saw a Chicken … http://scruss.com/blog/2005/05/09/swift-turbine-specs-look-dubious/comment-page-1/#comment-141611 <sup>ping trouble with a long spoon « We Saw a Chicken … Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:39:27 +0000 http://scruss.com/blog/?p=2077#comment-141611 [...] I like Rob Goodlatte’s Flow Theme for WordPress. But it makes me look like a shambling moron in some of my equations, viz.: [...] [...] I like Rob Goodlatte’s Flow Theme for WordPress. But it makes me look like a shambling moron in some of my equations, viz.: [...]

]]> By: Andrew Kruse http://scruss.com/blog/2005/05/09/swift-turbine-specs-look-dubious/comment-page-1/#comment-11080 Andrew Kruse Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:33:47 +0000 http://scruss.com/blog/?p=2077#comment-11080 I am please to see that people are out there questioning the performance of this machine. I have been in the small wind business for 18 years and our company has produced more than 80,000 machines. I am not excactly sure who is behind this product but it certainly does appear to be well funded. The problem is they have stolen a number of ideas from the competitors of the world and incorporated them into this product. Their stall regulation is something we invented and patented in the U.S. We were the first company to promote the use of "roof top" mounting. Many of the coponents we see are of our designs. The ring is from the Marlec company in the UK. You are absolutely correct in your energy calcualtions. This machine does not have a chance of producing the claimed output. Furthermore, roof top mounting is not all that they claim. While it can be done, understanding prevailing wind resources are critical to roof top mounting. Furthermore, mounting it next to a chimney is just plain stupid. THe soot from the smoke will wreck the efficiency in the first month. The machine is certainly interesting. It does have a lot going for it and will be a good competitor in the market place. However, if they take the positon of mounting and energy production as they have in their brochures, this product will certainly be another scar in the long line of small wind turbines that have come and gone. This machine should never be allowed to go to market unless they can offer independent performance data from a reputable testing facility. Andy Kruse I am please to see that people are out there questioning the performance of this machine. I have been in the small wind business for 18 years and our company has produced more than 80,000 machines. I am not excactly sure who is behind this product but it certainly does appear to be well funded. The problem is they have stolen a number of ideas from the competitors of the world and incorporated them into this product. Their stall regulation is something we invented and patented in the U.S. We were the first company to promote the use of “roof top” mounting. Many of the coponents we see are of our designs. The ring is from the Marlec company in the UK.

You are absolutely correct in your energy calcualtions. This machine does not have a chance of producing the claimed output. Furthermore, roof top mounting is not all that they claim. While it can be done, understanding prevailing wind resources are critical to roof top mounting. Furthermore, mounting it next to a chimney is just plain stupid. THe soot from the smoke will wreck the efficiency in the first month.

The machine is certainly interesting. It does have a lot going for it and will be a good competitor in the market place. However, if they take the positon of mounting and energy production as they have in their brochures, this product will certainly be another scar in the long line of small wind turbines that have come and gone.

This machine should never be allowed to go to market unless they can offer independent performance data from a reputable testing facility.

Andy Kruse

]]> By: Andrew http://scruss.com/blog/2005/05/09/swift-turbine-specs-look-dubious/comment-page-1/#comment-10547 Andrew Wed, 11 May 2005 15:05:21 +0000 http://scruss.com/blog/?p=2077#comment-10547 Nice debunk! You really should email this Colin Donald at the Scotsman (I think the format would be cdonald /at/ scotsman.com). He wrote a piece on the Swift turbine a while ago: http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1249502004 Nice debunk!

You really should email this Colin Donald at the Scotsman (I think the format would be cdonald /at/ scotsman.com). He wrote a piece on the Swift turbine a while ago: http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1249502004

]]>