Wind Farm Noise Nuisance Case Uncovers Wind Industry’s Culture of Lies

The wind industry’s entrenched culture of lying and deceit is well-known around the globe.

Uncovering precisely what these characters get up to is more of a challenge.

A noise nuisance case being pursued by farmers in the Victorian Supreme Court against the operator of the Bald Hills wind farm (see our post here) is revealing a whole lot more than the wind industry is ever open to admit.

The operator’s noise consultant, Marshall Day Acoustics has been destroying and deleting unhelpful noise data that it has gathered from non-compliant wind farms across Victoria for years, including at Bald Hills, which, we are told is one reason why it decided to not call any of its staff to give evidence during the trial.

The usual ‘dog-ate-my-homework’ excuse used by MDA whenever its noise data disappears was, apparently, deemed unlikely to cut it in front of a Supreme Court Judge.

But the officers and directors of the operator being sued by Noel Uren and John Zakula were unable to avoid giving evidence; their cross-examination made for some very interesting viewing on the live AVL feed.

The story below recounts the cross-examination of one of their number, James Arthur, as he squirmed his way through his evidence, revealing the manner in which wind farm operators destroy people’s lives, and the lengths they go to in their attempts to get away with it.

Bald Hills Wind Farm cover-up exposed
Sentinel-Times
Michael Giles
19 September 2021

IT’S a wind farm, not a mushroom farm.

But as the Supreme Court of Victoria heard last week, that old adage about keeping them in the dark and feeding them on horse manure, certainly applies to the relationship between the operators of the Bald Hills Wind Farm and neighbouring farmers.

What can only be described as an extensive cover-up to hide such things as evidence of the highly irritating noise coming from faulty turbine gearboxes, came to light during a searching cross-examination of key Infrastructure Capital Group (ICG) employee, James Arthur.

It revealed, among other things, how the owner-operator of the Bald Hills Wind Farm, the IC Group, tried to remove, avoid or hide evidence of non-compliance, even to the point of accepting “liquidated damages” payments because of “tonal audibility defects” with a majority of the Senvion turbine gearboxes, while at the same time denying the complaints of neighbours about exactly that issue and pursuing the State Government for compliance approval.

In a feature of Day 9 at the Supreme Court hearing last Friday, September 17, Georgina Costello, barrister for the plaintiffs, local landowners, John Zakula and Noel Uren, demonstrated how ICG had known about the “special audible characteristics” coming from the faulty turbine gearboxes, not only from the complainants, but also from Marshall Day Acoustics, their own acoustic experts, and the turbine manufacturers Senvion Australia, as early as April 2017, but by 2021, the problem has still not been rectified.

Since the demise of Senvion in May 2019, ICG has been working with Vestas Australian Wind Technology Pty to try to fix the problem which may ultimately require the replacement of the gearboxes in most, if not all 52 turbines.

In August 2020, Vestas provided a condition report to ICG which included the following details:

“The Bald Hills Wind Farm, completed in 2015, consists of 52 Senvion MM92 wind turbines. Since commissioning, Senvion had been working with the owner, Infrastructure Capital Group, ICG, to resolve a gearbox tonality issue present in the majority of the turbines which breached Senvion’s contractual noise warranty and generated noise complaints from the community.”

Ms Costello pursed Mr Arthur over Vestas’ statement:

“There’s still a tonal problem affecting the turbines today, isn’t there?” Ms Costello asked Mr Arthur.

Mr Arthur: “That’s correct, yes.”

C: “So for years, by August 2020, you’d been working with Senvion to try to resolve a gearbox tonality issue which had generated noise complaints from the community, hadn’t you?”

A: “Factually we did not think that statement was necessarily correct.”

C: “You didn’t think it was absolutely correct. Did you think it was probably correct, Mr Arthur?

A: “No, I did not.”

C: “Did you ask Senvion to resend you that slide (for the presentation) with the line about ‘generated noise complaints from the community’ removed?

A: “I certainly did.”

C: “That’s because you didn’t want anyone to read that, isn’t it?”

A: “No, because, as I said before, I didn’t think it was factually correct and the tonality issue Senvion and Vestas had investigated relates to the EPC contract and not the planning permit.”

Ms Costello had earlier demonstrated that by April 2017, Marshall Day Acoustics had also told the Bald Hills Wind Farm operators that there was a tonal noise issue with the gearboxes in the turbines.

It was around the same time as Mr Arthur acknowledged reading letters from John Zakula complaining “the noise was causing him considerable disturbance and seriously affecting his sleep” as well as “affecting his health, causing anxiety, stress, headaches and other issues”.

Mr Zakula said: “The noise is severe and at its worst at night and it’s continuous through the entire nights and days… exceeding night-time levels as specified in the planning permit,”

And he also specifically reported, in October 2016 and November 2016, that “there are significantly notable special audible characteristics”.

Earlier in the week, another neighbour of the windfarm, Don Jelbart, had independently described the sound from the turbines as like “a gearbox noise… a gearbox that needs attention, a grinding sort of mechanical noise”.

“You will be watching the television, you will have it cranked up to 35 or something and you can still hear the wind turbines over the top of it and the other night, it was a pity Your Honour didn’t visit us the night before you came down here, because with the dishwasher on and the telly on 34 I could still hear them,” he said referring to a site visit by Justice Richards on Wednesday, September 8.

In a letter to the previous wind farm manager, Matthew Croome, dated 13 April 2017, Stuart Mallinson of Senvion noted “multiple or harmonic tones coming from the turbines” describing it as “not ideal”.

Ms Costello: “Something of an understatement, Mr Arthur?”

Mr Arthur: “Well, we read this issue and from our perspective, under the planning permit, tonality penalties were applied and as a result, turbines were curtailed. So, we took note of this issue and we dealt with it appropriately.”

Ms Costello: “Now, a month later, so in May 2017, you’ve just seen some correspondence showing the tonal issues in April 17, a month later you reported full compliance with the permit to the minister, didn’t you?

Mr Arthur said he couldn’t recall.

Ms Costello challenged Mr Arthur over a report by Resonate Acoustics in August 2017, detailing how tonality exceeded the guarantee in 10 out of 11 turbines tested, triggering liquidated damages payments to ICG.

Ms Costello: “When did you tell the plaintiffs that your company had been getting liquidated damages because of a tonal audibility defect, Mr Arthur?

Mr Arthur: “I don’t believe we did.”

Ms Costello also referred to a query from the ANZ bank to Bald Hills in which they wanted to know when the gearbox problem would be fixed.

Ms Costello said a range of solutions were discussed in a report including this note by Mr Arthur: “We could also add that we don’t think it will be necessary to replace every single gearbox at the wind farm because it’s not impacting operational performance and we comply with the noise conditions of the planning permit”.

Ms Costello: “You said that, didn’t you?”

Mr Arthur: “That’s correct, yes.”

C: “So this tonal audibility problem wasn’t affecting the money you were making at the wind farm, was it?”

A: “That is correct, yes.”

C: “But it was affecting the sleep of the neighbours, wasn’t it?”

A: “I can’t answer that for sure.”

C: “You can answer that, can’t you, Mr Arthur?”

A: “According to the neighbours, that’s correct.”

Ms Costello went on to say that while the operators of the wind farm claimed to have successfully implemented a curtailment program, to reduce noise levels under certain conditions, it hadn’t been operating successfully in 2015, 2016 and 2017 when neighbours started complaining about the noise.

Ms Costello also demonstrated how uncertain wind speed measurement, due to interference from surrounding turbines, meant some turbines continued to operate in unrestricted mode, and are still making excessive noise.

Ms Costello said the wind speed data, used to measure noise levels at Mr Zakula’s house and Mr Uren’s house was taken from a recording mast (BH80) located 5 kilometres away – Mr Arthur agreed.

Ms Costello then drew Mr Arthur’s attention to a report by the world’s largest technical consultancy firm to the renewable energy industry, DNVGL, in which they recommended mast 80 be completely refurbished due to the “uncertainty” of the wind speed data.

Ms Costello: “So, you say you don’t believe that the wind farm is causing the noise that Mr Zakula and Mr Uren were hearing because you’ve relied on your acoustic report. That’s your position, isn’t it?”

M Arthur: “That’s correct, yes.”

C: “But the appendix to the very report you rely on describes uncertainty associated with the wind speed as high, doesn’t it?”

A: “It does, yes.”

C: “So the acoustic report might be wrong. Do you agree with that?”

A: “No, I disagree with that.”

C: “So, you’re not prepared to accept that Mr Uren and Mr Zakula are correct on the one hand, but you will not consider that your acoustic expert might be wrong. Is that your position?”

A: “Sorry, can you please clarify the question?”

C: “You won’t accept that Mr Uren and Mr Zakula are telling the truth, but you will accept that the acoustic conclusion is correct, despite the uncertainty. Is that your position?”

A: “I just can’t say for sure if the wind farm is causing the plaintiffs issues, but in my opinion the acoustic work is correct.”

Ms Costello went on to describe how the Wind Farm operators had changed its complaints’ handling process without telling the neighbours, effectively allowing them to ignore any repeated issues.

A company secretary for ICG said in an email (May 12, 2017): “We don’t want to engage with the complainants until the Marshall Day report confirming that the wind farm noise is compliant with the regulations is confirmed by the EPA”.

Mr Arthur agreed, that in consultation with “the relevant government department” and “the National Wind Farm Commissioner”, they didn’t believe they had to investigate repeat complaints and the policy was changed in 2018 without telling the neighbours until 2020.

Ms Costello: “So you didn’t tell the plaintiffs – Mr Uren or Mr Zakula – that you were going to change the complaints handling process so that you weren’t going to investigate repeat complaints, did you, until much later? That’s right, isn’t it?”

Mr Arthur: “That’s right, we didn’t tell them at the time, that’s correct.”

Ms Costello: “And poor old Mr Zakula kept writing to you, didn’t he, before you told him that you weren’t going to bother investigating repeat complaints. That’s right, isn’t it, Mr Arthur?”

Mr Arthur: “Yes, Mr Zakula was still writing, I believe, yes.”

In fact, ICG didn’t inform the complainants that they had affectively stopped acting on repeat complaints until May 2020.

It was around the same time as they were trying to change the post-construction noise monitoring program.

Ms Costello quizzed Mr Arthur over the noise monitoring program, noting that a submission to the South Gippsland Council, on behalf of the complainants pointed out that Marshall Day Acoustics had used a different site from the pre-construction testing for post-construction testing.

Mr Arthur agreed.

She also went on to say that Marshall Day and ICG had used average noise level data when seeking operational approval from the government rather than reporting intermittent loud noises that were often well in excess of that allowed under the government planning permit.

Ms Costello: “If you look at the green dots, being the actual noise levels recorded, you can see that on many occasions the noise at the Jelbart property is almost 60 decibels, even in low wind conditions. The MDA report ignored the outlying results which reflect the conditions experienced by the residents because the MDA report only dealt with averages. So that flaw in MDA’s approach was pointed out in the submission that you received in November 2018, wasn’t it?”

Mr Arthur: “That was pointed out, correct.”

C: “This point that I’m making to you now, and that was made in a submission that you received in November 2018, is that there’s an intermittent noise nuisance, a very loud intermittent noise occurring from your wind farm at the property of Mr Zakula. That’s what this graph shows, isn’t it?”

A: “I can’t comment on that concept, sorry.”

C: “Your experts weren’t advising you on whether there was a nuisance, were they, Mr Arthur?”

A: “Marshall Day were not providing expertise on that, that’s correct.”

C: “They were only advising you on permit compliance, weren’t they?”

A: “Yes, that’s correct.”

C: “But if Marshall Day is wrong about how the averaging works, then they’re wrong about whether there’s an intermittent nuisance at night, aren’t they?”

A: “I can’t comment on that statement.”

Ms Costello, said that while ICG didn’t ask Marshall Day to investigate the spikes in noise from the wind farm, James C Smith & Associates did undertake such research for the South Gippsland Shire Council ahead of the council ruling that there was indeed noise nuisance breaches under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. Mr Smith reported that he experienced the elevated noise levels at Mr Zakula’s house for himself.

But in a letter to the Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne, labelled “strictly confidential”, ICG ignored all these issues about the unreliability of wind speed data, the use of noise averaging instead of actual noise levels, the tonal noise problems, the managing of complaints and reports of elevated noise levels by experts in the field; to apply for and receive confirmation from the Minister that they were complying with their planning permit.

They received that confirmation from the Minister around the time, in April 2019, that the local council found there was an intermittent nuisance.

Council reached its decision, according to Ms Costello, based on what they described as credible and consistent noise logs, that there was a nuisance.

Ms Costello said the operators of the wind farm didn’t even tell the complainants that they were appealing the council’s decision, leaving them to apply to be joined in the appeal action that ultimately went to the Supreme Court.

The operators lost their appeal and the council’s decision still stands.

Ms Costello wrapped up her interrogation of Mr Arthur by summing up the number of actions ICG had taken to deny the complaints of the farming neighbours while shifting the goalposts, with the approval of the Planning Minister, most of the time without informing their neighbours about what they were doing.

After Justice Richards sought clarification about what the operators might do to improve the amenity at Mr Zakula’s house, short of shutting down the Bald Hills Wind Farm, Mr Arthur said his firm was complying with the planning permit conditions as they stand, so there would need to be new noise-level targets set by the government for that to change.

The Supreme Court action, being brought by two neighbours of the Bald Hills Wind Farm, John Zakula and Noel Uren, alleging substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land, due to the noise coming from the wind farm, continues this week and is expected to run until Tuesday, September 21.

See more here: stopthesethings.com

Header image: Adobe Stock

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (16)

  • Avatar

    Allan Shelton

    |

    Are you sure that Ms Costello is not the grand-daughter of Lou Costello of the comedy duo Abbot and Costello?
    Her questioning of Mr. Arthur reminded me of the comedy routine by Abbot and Costello called “Who’s On First”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Allan and especially other PSI Readers,

      When I began reading this article, I was surprised (astonished even) to read that the cause’ of the wind turbine noise was being described as was being considered to be due to faulty gear boxes. For I had commonly read the noise known to occur in the case of these large wind turbines comes from the rapid movement of tiny tips of the big, long turbine blades moving rapidly through air of the atmosphere.

      And I read, without any challenge of the defendants, this noise described as ““a gearbox noise… a gearbox that needs attention, a grinding sort of mechanical noise”.” In fact, it seems everyone involved in this case agrees that the problem is the GEARBOX!!!

      But I do not read that anyone considers tearing down a gearbox to observe the result of this proposed GRINDING ACTION!!!

      So Allan we read evidence that all parties involve, could (might) be not too PRACTICALLY INCLINED!!! Of course, there is another better explanation: IT IS OFTEN VERY (MOST) DIFFICULT TO SEE THE OBVIOUS.”!!!

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi PSI Readers.

    You could have read that I just wrote: “IT IS OFTEN VERY (MOST) DIFFICULT TO SEE THE OBVIOUS.”!!!” PSI is a takeoff on the tile of Newton’s book ‘The Principlia” which spell checkers no longer know how to spell. I have READ a lot just I have recently read the Einstein had read a lot before he wrote four very SIGNIFICANT papers (articles) in one year. Which established his reputation as being a SCIENTIST that others began to pay some attention to what he wrote.

    In the next few days I am going to try to write a few short comments which will produce comments from you (evidence that you are actually reading and considering the possible value of these short comments.

    I have read that Newton was terribly upset when one of his supposed mistakes by Robert Hooke, another member of the Royal Society, publicly embarrassed Newton, who had a ‘thin’ skin. Hooke did this by proposing a thought problem in which a tower was built tall enough so that a body placed at the top of the tower would have no weigh a measured by Hooke’s spring scale. This because the attraction of the earth’s gravity upon the body was being balanced by the centrifugal effect of the rotation of the EARTH. And Hooke asked what would haven when the tower was remove?

    Because Newton was struggling with the composition of Book III of The Principlia at this time he maybe instinctively (without thinking) hastily drew a rough sketch in which the body slowly spiraled to the ground. So when Hooke pointed out that the body should remain orbiting the Earth just as it had when on the top of the tower. And Newton had no explanation for his sketch. However, I finally read Motte’s translation of Newton’s Latin and know that Newton wrote at length about his observations of comets and their tails which we observe following the incoming ‘head’ of the comet. Hence the word tail

    However, Newton and others had opportunity to observe two rare comets which approached the sun very closely and they observed the outgoing ‘tail’ preceded the head and was larger and had more more brightness (density?) then the incoming tail had had. So it is clear that Newton pondered at length without coming to a clear understanding (explanation) of which was observed.

    But we now know that space debris now is observed to spiral down to the earth’s surface just as Newton roughly sketched.

    I leave a Reader to explain how it is that the ‘tail’ forms behind the incoming comet.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    PSI correspondence previously considered turbine noise and came to the conclusion the noise came from the blades going past the tower structure. This effectively keeps strumming a closed ‘organ pipe’ which produces a low frequency hum. The specific comment says:
    “ A typical WT unit has three blades and rotates at speeds from 15 to 20 rotations per minute, giving a frequency impact on the tower of 45 to 60 cycles per minute, or 0.75 to 1.0 Hz. A common tower is a hollow construction and 65m high. This can be compared to a stopped pipe organ where the resonant frequency is approximately equal to four times the internal length, or 260 Hz.
    These are both very low frequencies to the left end of the Gravity Waves chart. The large concrete foundation can be expected to transmit this sound through the surrounding ground area.” Refer https://principia-scientific.org/wind-power-is-the-fuselage-turbine-a-better-design/

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Robert,

      Thank you for pointing out another obvious factor which could create noise. Now, I observe the obvious observation which is that it seems that the noise is louder during the nighttime. I have a possible explanation for this due to the fact that the rpm of the turbine might vary between 15 to 20 rpm according to you. However, I do not yet know if this variation is due the size of the turbine, the velocity of the wind, or due to a semi-diurnal variation of the ‘power load’ or to each of these factors.

      And my point is that one must try to identify all possible causes of the noise. However, Robert,I must ask: are the blades upwind or downwind from the tower? Why do I ask? I have read that downwind from the turbine the air is nearly calm. For, if you do not know this, this is evidence that you have overlooked the obvious. It is so easy to do and I do it all the time.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Howdy

        |

        Jerry, Every installation of a wind generator I have seen has the blades leading, to counter interference from the tower itself.

        I found some articles that Robert and yourself might like to view:
        Wake mitigation on wind farms: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167610516302264

        Silent flight: suppressing noise from wind turbine blades with owl-inspired coating: https://www.power-technology.com/features/featuresilent-flight-suppressing-noise-from-wind-turbine-blades-with-owl-inspired-coating-4643523/

        Wind turbine gearbox, noise reduction: https://pes.eu.com/exclusive-article/leading-wind-turbine-gearbox-technology-in-noise-reduction/

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Howdy and Robert,

        These links are science-technology based information which certainly contributes to our discussion. Thank you very much!!! Good work!!!

        What I clearly do not understand about what is written in the third link the suggestion that the turbine blade noise and the gearbox noise seem to be ‘equal’ in common cases. In other words, it seems some manufactures have have reduced loudest noise to the level of the lowest. And my question is how was this done?

        And a factor, relative to the level of noise, about which I have not read is the size of the turbine.

        The only experience have with power are robust, small ‘wind chargers’ which certainly created noise heard on our neighbors farms but we (I) could never hear the noise about a half a mile away. And they did not have (need) gearboxes. to increase the speed of the generator component of the machine.

        Robert, when one stands behind the larger turbines with low rotation speeds relative this of the old wind chargers, is the air immediately downwind calm as I have read? For if this air isn’t calm, we must conclude that all the kinetic energy of the wind hasn’t ‘captured’ by the turbine. And it seems your proposed modifications to reduce the ‘blockage) in the air which much pass through that volume of air in which the turbine spins for the turbine to extract this kinetic energy if the wind.

        And hopefully anybody who promotes wind energy and solar energy is the need to store these very variable sources of electrical energy. And doubt if many people have practical experiences to allow them to appreciate how serious this problem is!!!.

        And we need to keep this discussion going so people not familiar with these problem might become aware of these problems and the all the actual factors involved.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Howdy

          |

          The pdf in the third link was 404. A working download containing the full document: http://cdn.pes.eu.com/v/20180916/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/PES-W-2-18-ZF-Think-Tank-1.pdf

          “it seems some manufactures have have reduced loudest noise to the level of the lowest. And my question is how was this done?”
          From the pdf: “Transmission error is considered as the main source of noise of meshing gears.
          as the transmission error of a wind turbine gearbox is in the region of 0.1 to 2 µm and is heavily dependent on the microgeometry of both gears, their alignment, shaft, housing and bearing deflections, etc., making validation of these calculations crucial
          it is crucial that both the wind turbine OEM and the drive train or gearbox OEM share highly confidential information and models or even team up to jointly perform the required computations, modelling and simulations”

          “Gearboxes commonly fail after 5-9 years” https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/16248/InTech-Wind_turbine_gearbox_technologies.pdf

          That’s ridiculous. The whole kit and kaboodle only lasts 20. That could be 3 replacements before the generator is done.

          An alternative: Piezo Based Active Vibration Absorber for Gear Box Noise Reduction in Wind Turbines
          http://publica.fraunhofer.de/dokumente/N-63252.html

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Howdy

            |

            “suggestion that the turbine blade noise and the gearbox noise seem to be ‘equal’ in common cases. In other words, it seems some manufactures have have reduced loudest noise to the level of the lowest.”

            The blades are the main noise generator, which masks everything else. If reduced speed is used, or blade modifications, everything else becomes noticeable.
            Trailing edge modifications appear to be the chosen route.

            Another pdf. It’s not new, but goes in some depth on prop design, air flow:
            https://sciforum.net/manuscripts/623/original.pdf

            One has to wonder if all this technological wizardry could not be better employed elsewhere. Even considering just the monetary cost, wind turbines are not a very good solution to a power problem.

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Howdy and especially PSI Readers,

        Especially PSI Readers because I want you to know that I accept the validity of Howdy’s comments relative to the topic of the article we have read. This because I do not (have not) always accept the validity of Howdy’s comments.

        Galileo wrote about the PROBLEM OF BIG MACHINES RELATIVE TO SMALL MACHINES. THE BIG MACHINE BREAK UNDER THEIR GREAT WEIGHT (MASS). The small WIND CHARGERS which had no gearboxes were still running without the need of the replacement of even BEARINGS when they were replaced by electrical power being brought to their isolated locations by WIRES.

        So, again thank you very, very much for this information. For you do establish that gearboxes are torn down because the effects of the friction (causing the noise) between gears has eroded away the metal surface of the gears. Which friction can never be eliminated so a perpetual motion machine can be manufactured.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Howdy and PSI Readers,

        Howdy, you just concluded: “One has to wonder if all this technological wizardry could not be better employed elsewhere. Even considering just the monetary cost, wind turbines are not a very good solution to a power problem.”

        Do you not KNOW that this is the opinion (UNDERSTANGING) .of John O’Sullivan (from the beginning Editor of PSI) and most of the founders of PSI as well as many of readers of PSI who come to PSI to read articles which are not available at any other (ONE) website of which I am aware??? And John O’ has frequently been criticized by some who QUESTION the quality and content of some of these articles and comments which are posted. But John has decided not to Censure any ideas like yours or mine.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        :

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Robert and PSI Readers,

      When I went to Robert’s link (article) I discovered we had discussed this topic of wind turbines and noise before and I now see the mistakes I was making: writing too much and did not remembering (overlooked)what I knew at that time. For I had read years, actually decades, that Galileo had written on page 2 of his book: ”
      “Salv. You refer, perhaps, to that last remark of his when we
      asked the reason why they emploj’ed stocks, scaffolding and bracing of larger dimensions for launching a big vessel than they do for a small one; and he answered that they did this in order to avoid the danger of the ship parting under its own heavy weight [vasta mole], a danger to which small boats are not subjecft?

      Sagr. Yes, that is what I mean; and I refer especially to his last assertion which I have always regarded as a false, though current, opinion; namely, that in speaking of these and other similar machines one cannot argue from the small to the large, because many devices which succeed on a small scale do not work on a large scale. Now, since mechanics has its foundation in geometrj’, where mere size cuts no figure, I do not see that the properties of circles, triangles, cylinders, cones and other solid figures will change with their size. If, therefore, a large machine be construcfted in such a waj^ that its parts bear to one another the same ratio as in a smaller one, and if the smaller is sufficiently strong for the purpose for which it was designed, I do not see why the larger also should not be able to withstand any severe and destrucftive tests to which it may be subjecfted.

      Salv. The common opinion is here absolutely wrong. Indeed, it is so far wrong that precisely the opposite is true,” (http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/3820H/Fall-2020/Dialogues-Concerning-Two-New-Sciences.pdf)

      So Robert, I should have pointed out that your experiment and its data which you described was meaningless because the small model has no direct relationship to the larger.

      And I know in chemistry it is a common practice to begin with a bench laboratory experiment and if it works as expected to scale up to a pilot plant size, and if it works as expected, then invest a huge amount of money to build a huge plant which should be an economic success because of size. However, I have read of at least two cases where the huge plant did not work as the pilot plant did. In one case, after years of trying to make it work, the huge plant was torn down. In the other case, the impure product produced by the huge plant, the company found (developed) anothermarket for their impure product.

      I have urged readers of PSI to read Galileo’s book. But I have not yet seen (observed) any evidence that any Reader has.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      .

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Howdy

    |

    “The Supreme Court heard that Infrastructure Capital Group, owners of Bald Hills Wind Farm, received an $11.7 million damages payment from the turbine’s manufacturers due to a gearbox tonality issue”
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/victoria/wind-farm-owners-denied-turbines-were-too-loud-yet-claimed-compensation-for-them-20211007-p58y45.html

    “It was worse in cold weather”
    Suggests the thickened lube oil was exacerbating a possible bearing wear issue which will increase gear noise if the bearing is loose and the gear mating surfaces are no longer optimal.
    If you’ve heard a failing vehicle gearbox/final drive, you’ll have some idea what it’s like. It’s loud, and It can become very noticeable at particular road speeds, like a resonance noise that travels, and is amplified through the vehicle shell, like the body of a stringed instrument.

    “The manufacturer, Servion, told them about the malfunction in 2017.”
    Sounds like the gearbox to me.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi PSI Readers,

    I do not have a brief comment prepared but this comment is to allow today’s Readers, to take a look at the conversation we were having here if they haven’t read it before. For I urge readers not to read “things” here at PSI and then go on with your lives as if what you read does not matter.

    As it seems so many are doing in the case of what Galileo wrote!!!

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi PSI Reader,

    I have frequently quoted from R. C. Sutcliffe’s 1966 book ‘Weather & Climate.’. In which Introduction he wrote: “Actually we must go to schools of geology and geography to find students who have been asked to direct their minds to the natural phenomena on earth.”

    A day or two ago I discovered a 1916 book titled ‘ESSENTIALS of GEOGRAPHY by Albert P. Brigham (a geographer) and Charles T. McFarlane (an educator). In their preface they began: “In this series of texts it is recognized that the physical and the human are coordinate branches of geography.

    “Every important phase of physical geography is sufficiently covered, but care has been taken not to give it the emphasis which is suited only to the high school or the college.”

    These authors had written a textbook about geography for elementary students. Which, elementary school, if you reflect upon your education is maybe the last time you can remember that you studied geography.

    Ponder this!!! And maybe act upon whatever you ponder.

    Have a good day. Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Michael Clarke (a true genius),

    You tell me that you read everything I write here. So I hope you will read this and make some comments.

    We, you and I, have pondered the glacier which left scatters erratic boulders on the surfaces of fields, which my father and then I farmed around, in Eastern South Dakota a bit south of 45N latitude.

    I quote some of what Brigham and McFarlane wrote to Elementary Students in 1916 about this ‘last’ glacier (beginning page 19 of the book’s 426 pages).

    “In a former period, in most of Canada and norther United States the climate was colder than now, and there was much greater snowfall. Glaciers formed around Hudson Bay, among the highlands of Canada, and also in the mountains of New York and New England. As the snow increased , ice sheets sheets formed and grew larger, until there were great movements southward, southeastward, and southwestward. This ice invasion extended as far as the islands south of New England, into northern Pennsylvania, to the Ohio River where Cincinnati now is, and into Kansas and Nebraska. (Fig. 36)”

    Fig 36 shows the ice sheets formed by snow to the west of Hudson Bay flowing down the slopes of a continental divide toward the Arctic Ocean as well as toward Eastern South Dakota and points south of our farm.

    Michael, if you are reading this, what do you consider (PONDER) about what these authors attempted to teach elementary STUDENTS???

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via