International Automated Systems (fka IAUS)

[TEDennis]

I've been wondering about the new "braced" lens design that was *supposed* to be the fix for the wind damage problem ...

... the wind damage problem that was *supposed* to be fixed by the "louvered lenses" ...

... which were the fix for the wind damage problem we were assured did not exist in the "pizza slice" lens design ...

... which was a modification of the "original" lens design that was shown in a picture with Dr. Justin Low several years ago.

During the 2011 National Convention (18 months ago), the new "braced lenses" were shown to attendees. They look very much like that "original* lens design.

So, what's different? Why would a design that is so similar to the *original* abandoned design now be able to solve the wind damage problem we have been told has already been fixed multiple times ... even though we were assured it didn't exist to begin with?

I think the answer is ... it won't. Meaning, there will still be a wind damage problem. Why? Because there will be almost TWICE as much surface area in the new "braced" lenses than was in the "pizza slice" lenses. So, there will be a larger surface area for the wind to wreak havoc with.

Not only that, but I suspect the entire circular framework for each pod and their supporting structure (truss?) will have to be redesigned.

Why? Check out the following pictures:

PIC-1: http://www.IAUSenergy.com/images/LensDesigns/17-lens-original.jpg

PIC-2: http://www.IAUSenergy.com/images/LensDesigns/17-lens-braced.jpg

PIC-1 is a life-sized photograph from way back in 2006 or 2007.

PIC-2 is an image I crafted by extracting the image of a lens from the life-sized photograph on RaPower3.com.

Note the area in the middle of PIC-1's circle (pod). All the lenses are shaped like pizza slices and are attached to the center pole. That provides stability (kind'a).

The lenses in PIC-2 are squared off on the "inside" closest to the center. Which means the point of the triangle is missing. There is nothing there to attach to a center pole, so there will have to be a new support structure for the squared off inside edge to attach to.

Not only that, but the newer "braced" lenses are almost TWICE the width of the "pizza slice" lenses, yet they have to fit together in essentially the same way.

Oddly enough, it requires SEVENTEEN lenses for BOTH designs.

Each pod for the original design was pretty darned heavy to begin with, which caused structural problems when all 4 pods were supported in their "truss". The dual-axis tracking system was already having problems driving the 4-pod structure, especially when it had to tilt side-to-side to follow the sun.

Each pod for the new braced design will be even heavier, which will increase the stress on the "truss" and the tracking system.

In addition to that, the diameter of the braced design will almost double, which means the trusses will have to increase their extension outward from the center of the tower ... thus increasing the stress on the trusses even more.

Maybe the above analysis could explain why we STILL haven't seen ANY of the new "braced" lenses installed at the pilot plant.

They first need to redesign the entire pod structure ...

... then they have to re-engineer the trusses to support the additional weight ...

... and then they have to move the towers farther apart to accommodate the additional diameter of each pod -- times 2.

Seems like the overall efficiency of this system isn't going to be quite as wonderful as was originally hyped.

Bummer.

Hey, all you "cult members" out there. How's things? You're welcome to provide a rebuttal for my above comments.

Or, you can just accept reality and admit you've been had.

Sure is a pretty day.

TED