Interests in wind energy will be stimulated by student competitions to develop simple wind energy convertor systems (WECS). This contest is designed to provide standard requirements for the competitors. Wind energy experts, teachers, professors, and companies are invited to participate as judges, advisors, prize contributors, and other roles. Primary emphasis will shift to the website but this document will be occasionally updated, although many sections will be removed and shifted to other parts of the website.

The economics of reducing costs below those of commercial wind turbines offers an additional challenge, but this will not be part of the contest scoring. Commercial systems must endure for many years, but these student-constructed systems need only last a few months or a few years, and are not intended to compete with commercial systems.

The latest dated version of this document posted on the website "Wind Energy Experimenter" (see Section 4.1) shall be the controlling document for this competition.

Develop a low-cost electricity supply that is suitable for very small, low-cost, experimental, wind turbines. Provide minimal power for scientific measurements and evaluation. Introduce students to the aspects of systems engineering in disciplines of science, meteorology, electrical and mechanical engineering, and in engineering economics. Develop student/advisor team working conditions and instill the ideals of project management. Provide direction in reporting and presentation of science and engineering projects.

A hierarchically structured project report (Section 5.0, Report) shall be submitted that includes trade study findings, parts list and costs, measured data, diagrams, and photographs. A notarized letter of report transmittal shall be included with the report. The team must substantiate their work to the satisfaction of the judges. A project website (Section 4.0, Website) with a publicly accessible URL shall be made available on the open Internet.

Instrumentation and data shall be provided to substantiate the project and qualify for the prize award. These ancillary instrumentation costs are not part of the component cost referred to above. Borrowed equipment may be used. Several teams might share equipment and ship it among the teams in rotation. A third party might provide equipment and operators to calibrate and validate the teams' instrumentation.

A minimum of $100.00 prize money will be awarded to the competing team that the judges determine has satisfactorily completed all the requirements and achieves the highest energy performance score as defined in Section 1.6.2.

This prize shall be named for [an historic wind energy figure; suggest Palmer Cosslett Putnam] in honor of (TBD-1.5.1).

1.5.2 Power Prize

A minimum of $100.00 prize money will be awarded to the competing team that the judges determine has satisfactorily completed all the requirements and achieves the highest power performance score as defined in Section 1.6.3.

This prize shall be named for [an historic wind energy figure; suggest Savonius] in honor of (TBD-1.5.2).

A minimum of $100.00 prize money will be awarded to the competing team that the judges determine has satisfactorily achieved the highest score in an implementation equation encompassing report quality, approach, implementation, etc., as defined in Section 1.6.4.

This prize shall be named for [an historic system engineering figure; suggest ?] in honor of (TBD-1.5.3).

One team may potentially win multiple awards. [May be revised]

All competition entries shall be received at the contest address defined in Section 8.0 (Contest Details) by 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time on the closure date of 12/31/2001. (There is currently no competition or award for the year 2000.) Late entries may be considered for honorable mention after other judging is completed.

The winning energy team shall be based upon watt-hours energy delivered from the battery to a continuously connected load resistor in one month divided by the average wind speed cubed over that same month period the equation below. (The use of average wind speed cubed allows low-wind areas to compete fairly against high wind areas.)

Energy Score = energy in watt-hours delivered in one month /(average wind speed cubed in mph). For example, 10 000 watt-hours per month / (10 mph cubed ) = 0.0137 watt-hours/mph-cubed-month.

The winning team shall be based upon the highest instantaneous power in watts delivered from the battery to a continuously connected, 100 ohm resistor divided by the average wind speed over that same measurement period and divided by the total dollar cost of all components per the equation below. (The use of average wind speed allows low-wind areas to compete fairly against high wind areas.)

Power Score = power in watts delivered/(average wind speed in mph cubed). For example, 300 watts / (10 mph cubed) = 0.0015 watts/mph cubed.

The winning team shall be based upon the highest score obtained in a weighted scoring equation. Categories and weights, etc. are TBD. The format of such a scoring equation might be
Score = k1*40%* score1 + k2*30% * score2 + k3*10%* score3 + k4*10%* score4 + . . .
where the ks adjust for the particular score units.

Some items may be peripheral to the actual project, and these costs need not be included in the cost study (Section 5.9.6 Costing). These items would not necessarily be included in a wind energy system. Examples are an equipment shelter or other temporary item.

In the years following 2001, the previous score(s) must be exceeded to receive the full prize. The highest nonexceeding energy, power, and performance competitors shall receive one-third the available award. The award amounts are anticipated to increase as an award fund is increased. Awards will be periodically adjusted as a transition to the annual award fund interest becomes substantial. With sufficient funding, second and third prize winners become feasible. Amounts would approximately be first prize, 60%, second prize, 30%, and third prize, 10%.

This competition is limited to residents of the United States of America who are [ for later years, students in sixth through twelfth grade of an elementary school, or a high school, or ] college freshman through seniors. At least two (TBR-2.0) students must comprise a team.

One to four (TBR-2.0a) advisors (not to exceed the size of the team) may advise but not assist the students. These advisors might be teachers or professors, or he/she might be a parent of a student, or another interested party. They may provide focused instruction of a subject to aid the student(s) in understanding the project. Their advice must be in suggesting methods or techniques of design or implementation, but the advisors may not significantly assist in the direct design or implementation. The advisors are responsible for reviewing safety procedures and ensuring that precautions are observed. Any injury or damages to any of the participants is not the responsibility of the contest proposers, supporters, or managers.

The competitor teams shall establish the validity of their data and prepare a report that justifies to the satisfaction of the judges the award of the prize(s).

The completed project must be described sufficiently to be replicable by other teams (should they so desire) in the following years. A replicated project may be submitted as long as significant improvements are incorporated to justify the award.

Provide an average of at least 10 watts of steady or pulsating direct current for direct charging of a nominal 12 volt storage battery.

A reasonable and obtainable level of safety shall be designed into each project. A risk analysis shall be written by the team prior to building a WECS. Use of power tools and temporary ammeters shall be supervised by an advisor. Students under the age of 18 shall not be permitted access to battery acid.

Unsafe conditions shall be recognized and designed against to reduce the risk of personal injury.

Fusing of circuits shall be provided to limit short circuit currents to the safe amperage capacity (ampacity) of the attached wires and components, whichever is less. A fusible link or other fuse shall be placed at the positive battery terminal to limit the short circuit current to 30 amperes (TBR-3.2.2).

TBD-3.2.3

The local wind speed is crucial to the effective available energy and to the scoring of this competition. Wind speed shall be measured and recorded at intervals of 5.0 (TBR-3.3) minutes. The use of average wind speed allows those in low-wind-speed areas to fairly compete against those in higher wind speed areas.

The rotor support shall be designed to withstand the highest annual wind speed at the nearest wind recording airport. This value need not include hurricane force winds if the WECS can be taken down and placed indoors when a significant storm is forecast.

The height of the ground to rotor center shall not exceed 20 feet above the average ground level within a 20 foot radius of the support. The support shall be guyed or otherwise supported to withstand (TBD-3.4.1) mph winds. The support and alternator/generator must be grounded by a ground rod system meeting local electrical code. This is often comprised of a six-foot, 1/2 inch diameter, copper-plated, steel rod driven next to the support structure and connected by an approved ground clamp to wire of AWG#10 or larger.

The rotor shall be designed to withstand the highest annual wind speed at the nearest wind recording airport. Either a vertical or horizontal wind turbine may be used. Design consideration shall be given to failure modes and their potential effects and distance limits.

Either an alternator or generator may be used. A permanent magnet or other field motor may be used as an alternator or generator. If used, it shall be a type commonly available from an automotive parts store or used parts business. If donated, a typical price must be entered in the costing analysis. The type and source must be documented to allow the completed project to be replicated: for example, "1990 Honda Civic alternator (Part number xxxxx; $dd.cc) from Discount Auto Parts". A few possible types of motor that might be used are a permanent magnet field seat motor or blower motor. Students may also construct an alternator or generator for the contest.

The wire from the alternator or generator case to the exterior power convertor input shall be 30 (TBR-3.4.4.1a) ± 0.5 (TBR-3.4.4.1b) feet. The wire size shall be AWG#14 (TBR-3.4.4.1c) or larger diameter. The wire type shall be suitable for exposed use.

This wire is only needed when an internal field coil is used, and it is not required for permanent magnet fields. The wire from the exterior power convertor input to the alternator or generator field shall be as specified in Para. 3.4.4.1. The wire size shall be AWG#18 (TBR-3.4.4.2) or larger diameter. The wire type shall be suitable for exposed use. Note that a field coil uses some of the generated power, while permanent magnet fields do not.

The wire from the power convertor case to the battery input shall be 3.0 (TBR-3.4.4.3a) ± 0.5 (TBR-3.4.4.3b) feet. The wire size shall be AWG#14 or larger diameter. The wire type shall be suitable for exposed use.

The cable shall be attached to the battery by standard automotive battery connectors that are designed for the connectors.

The wire from the battery case to the exterior load input shall be 3.0 (TBR-3.4.4.4a) ± 0.5 (TBR-3.4.4.4b) feet. The wire size shall be AWG#14 (TBR-3.4.4.4c) or larger diameter. The wire type shall be suitable for exposed use.

A wire shall be provided from any elevated mast support or other metallic aerial device to a grounding rod or device. This wire shall be AWG#10 (TBR-3.4.4.5) or larger. This wire need not be insulated.

Fuses or circuit breakers shall be used to protect the wiring from short circuits. Switches shall be used to permit disconnection of the power sources (battery and alternator/generator)

The variable output voltage from the alternator/generator must be conditioned to charge the battery. This convertor may be purchased or designed and built by the students. A costing analysis shall be prepared to choose any make/buy decision.

The battery may be an automotive starting or deep-cycle, lead-acid type, and shall have a nominal 12 volt rating. The capacity shall be at least a nominal 300 (TBR-3.4.7) ampere-hours cranking capacity rating.

Indicators may be used to show battery voltage or load current. These devices will draw current and may reduce performance. An understanding of these incidental loads is needed. Note that the indicators could be switched on and off if desired.

The load shall be a 100 ohm (TBR-3.4.9a) resistor of 5 watt power (TBR-3.4.9b) dissipation to resist burnout.

The load shall be continuously connected to the battery during the course of a performance test.

The official competition website is established at http://www.oocities.org/windy4us. This website will contain the latest version of the competition rules and other useful information.

The official competition email list is established at http://www.egroups/com/windenergyexperimenter. Once you have signed in to this website, you can post messages, ask questions, etc. This site will be the official means of contacting the competitors, educators, judges, advisors, et al.

The students' wind project website shall be established on the Internet. The school's website may be used or a free hosting service such as Yahoo Geocities, Anchor, Tripod, or equivalent may be used. Content access must be freely available to the public during the period of the contest and indefinitely after the contest. Webpages shall bear the name and email address of the team. These webpages shall be made available for rehosting on a combined site. The location shall be reported as soon as the site is initially established.

The website shall contain information about the site location, the school or college name, and the general educational grade level of the team. The project approach shall be generally described and results presented. Other persons may be prepare or maintain the website, but its content must come from the team students who are constructing the wind system.

This required format will facilitate comparison and judging of the competitors' reports. Content not defined in this section is optional. The total length of the report shall not exceed 100 (TBR-5.0a) pages. Supporting data, charts, and plots shall not exceed (TBD-5.0b) 20 percent of the total page length. The submitted report becomes the property of the contest management and may be further disseminated to encourage future competitions.

Provide the submittal letter unattached and separate from the report. A letter of project abstract and summary results shall be provided with the report that is signed by the participants, the sponsoring advisors, and witnessed by a notary public.

State the project name, team name and affiliation, address, date of report, contact person, telephone number, and email address.

Provide detail to at least the third level (1.2.3) but no farther than the sixth level (1.2.3.4.5.6).

As stated. Table number, title, page number.

As stated. Figure number, title, page number.

Mark this section as "1.0 Introduction". Provide a concise abstract of the project suitable for citation in a reference.

Mark this section as "2.0 Summary". Summarize the project and its findings on one page or less.

Mark this section as "3.0 Recommendations". Suggest approaches to be used or avoided, parts that failed and why, new areas of investigation, etc.

Mark this section as "4.0 Details".

Mark this section as "4.1 Introduction".

Mark this section as "4.2 Investigations and trade studies". Discuss special issues and findings. Discuss selection of approaches.

Mark this section as "4.3". Optional heading and content.

Mark this section as "4.4". Optional heading and content.

Mark this section as "4.5". Optional heading and content.

Mark this section as "4.6 Costing". Other Section 4 subsections may be inserted above. Renumber as required.

Mark this section as "5.0 Conclusions". State the conclusions concisely.

Mark this appendix section as "A-1 References". References shall include a one- or two-line summary and review of the content to guide others. Use the following format: TBD-5.11

Mark this appendix section as "A-2 Bibliography". The bibliography shall include a one- or two-line summary and review of the content to guide others. Use the following format: TBD-5.12

There are many good books and magazines that treat wind energy, wind energy systems, and components. Here are a few of many. Suggestions of other contributors are welcomed.

These are definitions of terms included in this Request For Entries.

Average wind speed: Arithmetric average of wind speeds measured at rotor average height or computed by V(rotor) = V(station) * (rotor hub height/anemometer station height)^(1/7) (TBR-7.1)

Energy: Power times the time it is delivered

Instrumentation: Gauges, meters, or equipment used in measuring the results of the experiment. This is auxiliary to the actual experiment. Accuracy of instruments shall be estimated.

Power (in watts): The rate of delivering energy (in watt-hours). The instantaneous product of voltage and current.

Rotor: Revolving mechanical element to extract energy from the wind.

These lists are provided as references for initial selection of project approaches. They will be augmented with further information as received from the project. Include approximate date with each cost.

This is a potential list of components:

Contest Management: Frank R. Leslie, f.leslie@ieee.org

Email questions will be responded to in the website FAQs list where possible

Contest Judges: Judge's address, Frank R. Leslie, Palm Bay FL 32905-4855

 [Many other judges are needed.]

The Wind Energy Experimenter website may be found at http://www.oocities.org/windy4us. This website will contain additional information and will be occasionally updated. Notice of update will be disseminated by the e-mail list of Section 10.0 below.

The Wind Energy Experimenter list may be found at http://www.egroups.com/group/windenergyexperimenter. This list may be used for questions and updates to the FAQs lists. [Volunteers are needed to monitor the elist and provide technical replies.

This competition is dropped for year 2001. School educators and advisors may email f.leslie@ieee.org to express a desire to hold this competition. TBD

This competition is dropped for year 2001. TBD High school educators and advisors may email f.leslie@ieee.org to express a desire to hold this competition.

This competition will be held for 2001. TBD

This competition is dropped for year 2001. TBD

This competition may be dropped. TBD

TBD

There are many who have made recommendations or supported this competition, and we thank them for their participation.

TBD

Some of these advisors may work from the Internet to provide advice and council to students and educators. Others are needed for each competition team, perhaps physics, engineering, and mathematics professors. Those in the amateur radio community may be interested in these efforts, which could be useful for emergency power.

Especial thanks to Paul Gipe, Michael Klemen, Hugh Piggott, Brent Scheibel, Dan Isbell, John Antonello, David MacClement, Heinz Dahl, Conrad Trevelyan, Gary Neal, and Larry, "the Diesel Nut" for their early comments that helped define this competition. This recognition is not presumed to imply their endorsement of the contest.

TBD There are several reasons for corporate support. The value of community relations, employee recruitment, and advertising are evident. There is also a rewarding sense of having stimulated the youth of today to consider the energy problems of our tomorrows.

TBD There are many sources of Governmental and independent funding that would be welcomed. We need minor support by many standards. The assistance of a grant writer would be most helpful.

TBD There aren't many expenses anticipated. Some examples of costs in descending order are the awards (estimated $1000 each for three), award plaques (estimate nine times $20), some publication costs (estimated $100), making of public service announcements (estimated $100). There may be others, but the majority of the contest is through volunteer contribution.

TBD Those in the wind energy industry may find advantages to donating part of a prize award or to establish a special prize in honor of one of their current or past employees. This participation could lead to better community relations or to recruiting new employees. There may be three categories of award, with first, second and third places.

TBD. [Perhaps a bank, organization, or established company can accumulate and hold the award money. At present, each award contributor can hold their own.]

Frank Leslie, Palm Bay FL, USA

TBD. [Numerous volunteers wanted. ]

TBD [This would be aimed at traditional science fair competitors.]

Here are answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Look here for answers and then check the website.

Q: A:

Q: A:

TBDs are "To Be Determined" and are used where a value is unknown.

TBRs are To Be Reviewed and are used where a tentative value is provided.

This list of changes aids in finding new changes.

11/9/2000: Sect. 1.1: Deleted cost as part of the score.

Competitor Team ________________________ Judging Date _______________

Team Address _____________________________________________________

Team Telephone _____________________ Team Email ____________________

__________________________________________________________________

Wind Project Title __________________________________________________

[list required items]

Project Cost in US$____________________

Energy Score _________ =

Power Score ___________________

Judge's Comments __________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

How can the establishment of local "average wind speed" be done without requiring expensive data logging equipment?

A-4.2 Competition Power Levels

Should there be competition power level ranges such as 0-1 watt, >1 to 10 watts, >10 to 100 watts, etc.? Lower powers would require less strength (projects must endure one month of weather exposure.) and cost less. If so, multiple levels of prizes should be awarded.

A-7 Other Issues to be Resolved

Comment is requested on the scoring equations and justification of its terms.

Is the battery chemistry pertinent?

Here are some comments on the contest:

I thank the respondents for their comments and suggestions. I'll try to summarize the input and the competition document changes that should result. I've omitted names since I am in awe of many of the respondents.

Again, these student efforts are not intended to compete with commercial products but to stimulate an interest in wind energy. Suggestions and comments received are in uppercase letter section; my response is in the following lower case letter:

A. This project is already very difficult without putting a financial element into it as well. To make cost-cutting the main priority like this is sending out all the wrong signals, in my opinion.

a. Costs or estimates will be required but will not be part of the scoring. Instead, limits will be put on some components for safety and practical reasons. For example, rotor diameter shall not exceed 1.0 meter. The rotor hub height shall not exceed 15 feet.

B. I note that you make no accuracy limitations on the instrumentation. While attaining reasonable accuracy may be a deterrent to some from entering, poor accuracy in instrumentation may also lead to a winner whose design is no better than any other design, but may look better on paper.

b. I'm considering specifying a Radio Shack $15 analog multimeter (22-218) as a consistent device. While the accuracy may be +-5%, at least there would be some consistency. Perhaps the award should require follow-up measurements. Any other suggestions? The handheld Dwyer DW-91 windspeed indicator might be specified for the same reasons, as it's inexpensive.

C. The available energy is proportional to the cube of velocity.

c. My oversight. The variability of wind due to turbulence requires some way to read local wind speed at the same time that the output voltage is read. Multiple readings would allow averaging to improve accuracy.

D. Provide an average of at least 10 watts of steady or pulsating direct current for direct charging of a nominal 12 volt storage battery. This will be easier to attain at higher wind sites.

d. The power need not be specified, as it's the amount extracted from the available wind that is judged.

E. The rotor support shall be designed to withstand the highest annual > wind speed at the nearest wind recording airport. I think this should be a stated maximum wind speed. Historically, it is surprising how few areas have not been subject to excessive winds. 100 mph is not

unreasonable. That's probably why the manufacturers design for 120 mph.

e. I'm now inclined to require that the turbine and mast be hand-movable by one or two people. It could then be designed for some reasonable wind of perhaps 30 mph, with the stated constraint that it's not left up overnight

or put up when storms are coming. The mast could be a 10 foot length of PVC pipe slipped into another length to set the rotor hub 15 feet above the ground. (1.5" into 2"?]

F. If there is a continuously connected resistor, why do you want the battery on the system? It will inevitably get burned out at low wind sites, and may even get burned out at high wind sites in a low wind time.

f. The intent of the battery was to get some time lag in which to make a somewhat steady measurement against the varying wind speed. The resistor was to discharge the battery if the charge current was insufficient, thus avoiding just measuring the surface charge. With a known(?) resistance, voltage readings over time allow energy to be computed as the battery integrates the energy.

G. I have skimmed through the document which I think is a great idea. The only point of concern I have immediately is your two-fold goal (i.e. power and energy). If I was approaching this competition I would immediately decide to aim towards one goal or the other as a clear aim for optimizing design. However, encouraging people to design wind turbines for peak power output (especially one that is required to operate within the framework of the rest of the scenario you have outlined)is to start leading novices astray from the very beginning. As we all know, peak power output at high wind speeds is not useful in any scenario. You only have to follow the novices' view of the Air on this site to be more than aware of how people without previous experience in wind power are easily misled with respect to this. Keep the energy goal alone (and give all the prize money to this or divide it between the runners up).

g. The power award was an afterthought better not thought. I will drop that, since the energy is the goal, not power, in the real world.

H. ** I taught physics to 17yo's most of my life (in universities and schools around the world), and brought up our 3 children to be very able adults. In all cases I have encouraged the taking of risks, in the circumstance that they know what degree of risk (and of what kind) there is.

** In (3) above [college], the last category is quite different from the younger two; in these latter, those that take on the legal responsibility are parents and those *in loco parentis* - the teachers. But all three categories have large numbers of individuals who know very little of the risk of injury or death involved, and even less of what to do to bring the risk down to a level at which they are willing to accept the legal responsibility.

** If I was the lead-teacher/advisor, I would know enough to specify such things as tower characteristics, the no-go region around the base of the

tower (dependent on the wind speed), method of raising/lowering the tower (no climbing), maximum rotor disc radius, the material and construction of the outer parts of the blades (designed to be frangible, with a small amount of thin wire reinforcing), and the non-mechanical safety aspects.

They would be limited down to a level at which I would be willing to accept the non-zero risk of being sued by the parents, or charged by the state, for serious damage or death of a student.

[second input; an opposing view] I am a college student in the Penn State Mechanical Engineering

Department. Over the past 2 years I have been involved in the FutureTruck competition (www.futuretruck.org). In this competition (sponsored by GM, Ford, DOE, ...), students are required to convert a Chevy Suburban into a Hybrid Electric Vehicle. The goal is to increase fuel economy and decrease harmful emissions without losing the functionality of a SUV. Every year, the 15 participating universities gather together and compete against each other in various events.

As you can image, there are HUGE causes of concern in terms of safety. I mean these are basically students that have very little mechanical experience and we're asked to deal with things like diesel engines and 300+ VDC, 500+ amps electric drive systems. So, safety is of the utmost concern.

On the other hand, the knowledge and experience that all the students are gaining is immeasurable. I would venture to say that the "real life" things that I'm learning because of this competition rank side-by-side (if not ahead of) all the book work I've had. Of course safety would be a concern in a competition similar to the one mentioned. Safety is a concern no matter what. But, I sure would hate to see it be the downfall of such an interesting competition.

I have truly loved the HEV competition and I believe myself, the US auto companies, and our society in general has benefited from it. I also believe a similar competition in the arena of wind energy could accomplish the same goals.

h. The safety aspects will be enhanced to limit weights, rotor diameter, fault currents, etc., and the first competition should be limited to college students. Safety considerations will be explicitly listed and discussed in the competition document to ensure some information for advisors, students, etc.

I. My thinking is that many companies have engineering teams trying to sort out and optimize wind generator design. Trying to get the students to emulate all of this is a big ask, maybe you could give them some basic parameters and then grade them on the subcomponents ie best aerofoil design, best magnetic circuit/generator/, best auto furling , best research understanding of wind environments/conditions etc, etc, The winners could perhaps aggregate their respective results for the ultimate wind generator.

i. Segmenting to the component level might make the effort seem too trivial. However, after building the entire system (more or less), the individual parts might be further evaluated to select another award winner. If a "standard" PM generator were available at a low price, the entire contest could be to drive it for the greatest energy output over some (measured) wind regime.

Further thoughts from fleslie:

I probably will change the contest period to something like 1/1/2000 to 4/30/2000. Ideally we could review the contestant entries and make the award well before colleges conclude with final exams.

A-8 A wind indicator project for novice wind experimenters

Younger students may wish to build a wind indicator requiring a lesser level of expertise and expenditures. These efforts will be excluded from the full competition, but a letter of recognition will be awarded to these groups.

For additional information, research the Internet websites and watch for results of the competition.

_____________________________________________________________

Definitions:

Class E: An indicator that shows the direction of the wind.

Class D: A wind turbine that indicates the direction and speed of the wind.

Class C: The Class D wind turbine with a measurement of the speed.

Class B: Class C with manual daily (for school days) recording of the wind speed and direction

Class A: Class B with "frequent" recording of the wind speed and direction

_____________________________________________________________

Details:

Class E: Create an easy-to-turn pivot for an indicator. Mount an air direction indicator on the pivot. Make a direction indicator for north, east, south, and west winds so you can tell which way the wind is coming from.

Class D: Make like Class E. Add a device that spins or deflects to show the strength of the wind. This could be a propeller, rotor, or a blade that hangs down to be blown back by the wind.

Class C: Make like Class D. Provide a scale to indicate the strength of the wind.

Class B. Make like Class C. Make daily readings by estimating the most common value while you are watching the indicator a few minutes. Make a list showing the date, time, wind direction and wind speed for each observation. When the indicator moves suddenly as the wind blows hard, you can see the wind gust speed.

Class A: Like Class B but with multiple readings made each day. Add to the data list the reported wind speed for your area from radio, television or Internet. Compute the difference between your readings and the reported values. Can you compute the average difference? Make a plot of your wind speed measurement plotted vertically against the reported wind speed plotted horizontally. (This is called an "X-Y" plot.) Can you draw a straight line through the cluster of points for each measurement? Should the line go through the zero wind speed corner of the graph?

________________________________________________________________

Student Wind Energy Competition 0.3 11/28/00