Submitted by Jeff Buster on Sat, 03/03/2007 - 22:16.

Reading the Plain Dealer over the last few weeks you've seen that our Cleveland Icebreaker Neah Bay  and the Canadian icebreaker (5 times heavier than the US breaker) were both unable to get through the ice ridges at Fairport Harbor.  The above photo is one of these ridges, I estimate it to be 20 feet high against the flank of Dike 14. 
We can't put up turbines in the lake any time soon, because we don't have the engineering data on the pressures and problems that lake ice will pose to a turbine tower lake bottom foundations.  Sure, we have the water intake crib - which has successfully withstood decades of ice, but is the Crib’s design commercially feasible under every wind turbine?  How many winter seasons will a turbine prototype foundation be tested?  Some winters the Lake doesn’t even ice up.  Who's working on this engineering?  The wind  on the Lake is nice and steady, but I think the Cleveland Foundation,  the Cuyahoga County Commissioners, and prosecutor Bill Mason are over their heads…what's wrong with installing land based turbines now, and beginning our lake engineering simultaneously?


By choosing a goal which is many years out of reach, are we looking for a way to put off advancing towards alterative energy?




ice dike 14 cropped.JPG49.39 KB

(c) Zebra Mussel 2007 OI!

No one is working on it, thats what I understand.  Ice, we forgot to factor that in.  Now these turbines will be 100% more than dirt based turbines.   Have I mentioned that the old stadium is 3 miles out.  What if we put them ontop of the old stadium.  Then the new one has one just outside it, and the old ones have some over top of them! 

The crib is a steel tube with rock fill from what I understand. Its a man made island there until the next ice age.         Of course with Andrew Waterson on the site selection committee for the turbines, I am sure they are studying NOAA / GLRL ice data going back 50 years as part of their research   ha haaa!

Also, whats up with the photo copy writing?  Way to keep things open source  '(c) Buster 2007'    =-)  

REALNEO Terms of use

The realneo terms of use specify:

I. License

You own your information, and maintain a copyright in all your Postings on this site.

If anyone would like to propose revisions to the terms of use, feel free to make suggestions here or email me at norm [dot] roulet [at] gmail [dot] com

Disrupt IT

I (a)

So in essence and by my read Busters (c) was redundant.  Terms of use appears to provide some legal leg to stand on re: protection of ones postings.  

Jeff, were you aware of what Norm is pointing out, or did it not provide a level of coverage you feel necessary, hence the (c)?

I never really thought about it.   But as soon as I saw his (c), it got me thinking about all of my IP slathered all up in here.... no (c).   Not really worried anyhow.  In 20 years it wont matter.

Norm, thanks for pointing out the Terms of use.  Of course without a legal beagle to review it.. what do I know.   Now if this was 40 CFR 112.7 of the Clean Water Act or Oil Pollution Act of 1990 I would feel more comfortable about my take on the law.


Hello Zebra, 


     It appears that Open Source refers generally to software code (and other software writer’s ability to see and use and modify the code).   I further interpret open source more broadly to mean open idea sharing.   The purpose of my posting on ice engineering for wind turbines in Lake Erie is to get that idea out onto the public soccer field for a little kicking around – as you do with the environmental issues you post.    As your response indicates, while there has recently been much effort by the Cleveland Foundation to gain public support for lake-based turbines – we don’t see anyone discussing the costs, delay, and problems with lake based turbines vs installing land based turbines right now.  


But as to photos and other images, what do you see as the acceptable ”open source”  means of attribution for them?  No attribution?  Name only?


If an image is posted without attribution, ie it is anonymous,  is that the correct open source way to go?  In the past, on this site, when I have posted photos that I took, I was asked who had taken them. Was that a caution for me to be clear on whose images I was posting? 


Do you see it as anti open source to copy write an image?  © does not restrict non commercial personal “fair” use, right?  And there are no secrets about an image with or without a © - right?   With Bill’s software there are closely held secrets….


If attribution doesn’t carry any restrictions  to further commercial use by others than the originator,  the monetized career of photographer or artist would be pretty much history, no?  My understanding is that if an individual wishes to retain the commercial reproduction rights to an image,  that is done with the  ©  (in Word go to “insert”, “symbol” – if you don’t want to use parenthesis).  If an original image is placed in the public domain without © - no rights are retained.   Would that make the image more “open source”?   Retaining the commercial reproduction rights on an image does not cripple any other creative efforts – which is not the case with Bill Gate’s code.  Gate’s is a considered and intentional racketeer-monopolist,  while copywriting an image does not monopolize anything.    


The doctrine of “fair use” is not antithetical to open source.    


By the way, I liked your west Erie cell-aerial -  you can see the island runway…


But what I was hoping to discuss was marine foundation ice engineering – look at that 20 foot high ice ridge - does that mean that 90% of the ice is under the lake's surface as with an iceberg?  If so, no wonder the ice breakers can't get through the ridges.  I have a bunch of engineering details of European off shore wind turbine foundations to post soon,  but who is doing any ice engineering work in the US or Canada?  Let’s go Google! 

The Winds May Shift wormsarethefuture

I fur7her int3pret open source to mean the opposite of backmasking technology pioneered by Judas Priest in their 1978 album.  Clearly the act of hiding messages intended to make people do things unwillingly is not transparent at all and opposite open source.   Of course goaheadandcompostwithworms it does not wormsarethefuture work so well in the written wormproliferationfront word that well.

That is why we are wormsarethewaytruthandlight working to encode secrete messages into our external communications at BSI.


Then again being part of the local Ark Collective, we might not need to stave or fend off the inevitable.  You see I missed the most recebt short wave broadcast from HQ regarding the current level.    Plan for the worst and hope for the best.  I learned that in scouts.   Thats why we are sustainability propoents, but also aligned with the Ark.  Design Solutions for a Post Crash Civilization.

Back to the subject of wind and ice

Interesting point about ice and how that will effect wind turbines on the lake. In addition to engineering towers that withstanding the force of nature, what about maintaining the turbines in winter? Would it matter if they could not be reached by ship for months on end?

Disrupt IT

this morning on NPR, U.

this morning on NPR, U. Toledo in conjunction with NASA Glen and others, awaiting word on the bid they put in for a marine based wind turbine blade research facility.  Ice engineering was mentioned at least twice.  FYI.