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'    =-)  

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! 

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