reply to post by LincolnUK
I am entirely with Lincoln UK on the "Ice Theory". I have performed some ballistic calculations and determined that:
(a) The physics does not work out for a block of ice to have enough kinetic energy to be ejected from one turbine into another, striking a blade and
causing it to shear - the trajectory probability is just too small. I based my figures on a 30kg block of ice to determine range and figured in a
drag coefficient of a "wing" to give maximum performance.
(b) Stress on a single blade caused by a build-up of ice is very unlikely to have caused failure unless there was a very high wind and the monitoring
mechanisms failed so causing the hub to spin beyond maximum safe rps.
Ice just does not add up in any way, shape or form.
All evidence points to a mechanical failure in the blade/hub connection, whether a defect caused in manufacture or through operation. The 1st blade
sheared and collided with the 2nd blade causing further damage.
There was no crash residue, the MoD would not have had time to perform a *complete" clean-up without somebody noticing. No 3rd party components were
discovered by the public.
The "missing" blade was probably a misnomer - the original reports by the general public indicating that "one of the blades is missing", i.e.
missing from the hub but not from the scene itself. There are photographs of the blade at the bottom of the mast. Early reporting would have been
completed without a "responsible" journalist on site, rather, by hearsay from witnesses that could have been misinterpreted.
Everything points to a simple malfunction of the wind turbine.
This is *not* to negate the lights seen in the area at the time but there appear to be no connective facts. Just because lights are seen and a wind
turbine is damaged does not mean that the damage was caused by the "lights" - unless there is clear connective evidence. There is none.
