0.

It would break.

over 9000

about 3 fiddy

42.

0.5*m*v^2

P*V*v^2

"... estimated that there is 3600 times more flow pressure energy in the wind than kinetic energy"

what you wrote is the same, only that factor 0.5 is missing.. where did that go?

huh? P is not p and V is not v ;)

assuming P is a pressure, what is V?

I BET IT'S VOLUME

I BET YOU ARE RIGHT

then its not an energy tho, hence my questions...

if V were volume, then P would be density, which was my original assumption(density*volume=mass), and would result in the same thing i posted.hence my question where the factor 0.5 went.

if P is a pressure, that leaves (m*s^2) missing, for the whole expression to result in an energy, since Pressure is [N/m^2]

didnt check what i copied tbh but my physics sense should have tingled^^
looks a bit weird indeed

im only an engineer, but i found it hard to imagine that by defining an energy by some other equation, you could get more energy output than the kinetic energy the wind has, which is by definition what i posted in #5, and by the law of energie conservation or whatever its called.

i also didnt want to get into a physical debate where someone would notice that i forgot to add friction or other losses into my expression, or that the wind is not "energie-less" after is passes the turbine.

appreciate the answers nontheless

well i dont know shit about tornados so if someone tells me it has more energy in some pressure potential than in the movement of the wind, why not^^

yes, but kinetic energy is directly dependant on density, i don't really see a conflict. more pressure = more volume flow / higher density => more energy (my take on it atleast)

also: do not know shit about tornadoes, or wind, or anything related to the topic ;))

1.21 GIGAWATTS !?!

yes! u won it sir! i was about to post the same, i guess i was too slow.

isnt it jiggowats?

No he was right and I'm scared you work on a frigate with weapons.

its a quote from back to the future, won't look it up, but i think the joke of it is, that it's not a real scale. ofcourse giga is correct. but the '1.21 something' is from back to the future... what the hell, i'll look it up

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?ter...jiggawatts

thats what i found, but i guess the pronounciation is the same, always assumed it was a gag tho

oh, isnt the gag that he pronounces is jiga insteat of giga? im totally not sure tho

1 gigawatt with a self powering dynamo contantly 24/7

http://www.esreality.com/index.php?a=post&id=1965682

wow, a post not related to Q43A

ez
For a mature hurricane, the amount of kinetic energy generated is equal to that being dissipated due to friction. The dissipation rate per unit area is air density times the drag coefficient times the windspeed cubed (See Emanuel 1999 for details). One could either integrate a typical wind profile over a range of radii from the hurricane's center to the outer radius encompassing the storm, or assume an average windspeed for the inner core of the hurricane. Doing the latter and using 40 m/s (90 mph) winds on a scale of radius 60 km (40 n.mi.), one gets a wind dissipation rate (wind generation rate) of 1.3 x 1017 Joules/day

one could also get a life instead of a wind dissapation, seems preferable

i would assume that whoever wrote that did it as a part of his job/education, not everyone is working at the local supermarket you know

i bet you feel proud now

I bet that for a moment you felt stupid, but after u wrote this u feel clever again

nope, i still feel stupid (my point still stands)

A wind turbine would most likely break down.