If a product performs exactly as advertised,
I haven't seen a shred of evidence that it performs as advertised. If
you have, then please point me to it. I've scanned all the articles
from the web site, and didn't notice any of the writers having so much
as seen the thing running, much less verifying the performance claims.
They simply parroted everything the maker told them, which is why all
the articles sound the same. The guy has been at it since the early
80's, doesn't seem shy about promotion, and the web site has been
recently updated. Yet even though a prototype was supposedly being
tested in 2003, there aren't any proper test results on display.
Wouldn't you expect that if the results supported the hype, then the
data would be featured on the web site instead of those repetitive
fluff articles?
Here is what legitimate test results look like
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34756.pdf. Read carefully, and
consider that in the real world, the larger AirX would need 40 hours
at 22mph to produce 6kWh. Since an average site doesn't have anywhere
near that much wind, hushenergy's 1 meter version's spec of 6kWh a
day *average* output is an extraordinary claim. Do you agree with that
much or not?
See my previous reply to you
http://tinyurl.com/f4uam, and the text
you quoted above. Even if the guy started out as a naive dreamer, by
now he should have discovered reality, which is that the performance
he claims requires much larger swept area.
There are turbines available that have been independently tested,
proving that they *do* provide 6kwh per day average on some sites.
Some examples here
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen/Wind_Turbines_Home.htm Even
though much larger, they can be purchased for about a third of the
hush's price. You do realize that the 1 meter version is projected to
cost about $6-7000AU right?
Some
applications only need a small bit of power to operate, such as cattle
watering pumps and weather stations.
Of course, and I've written several times recently about small-wind
powering low-energy loads. Independently-tested low-power turbines are
available for a small fraction of the hush's price. But keep in mind
that battery-less applications like cattle watering usually need more
*power* than a small turbine can supply for extended periods. For
example, the turbine often mated with the Grundfos SQ Flex submersible
is 10' in diameter, which is nearly 10 times the swept area of the
hushcon's 39" version.
If a product does so quietly, what's the beef?
Get back to me if you see independent verification that the hush is
any quieter than other turbines of equal performance. Until then it's
just hyperbole, much the same as you'll find at any perpetual motion
web site.
Wayne
