Talk:Viking Wind Farm

Viking Wind Farm

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved' as a technical request. I propose that you create the other "viking wind farm" article with any appropriate disambiguation phrase first, before deciding which (if either) is primary for the topic. In the absence of any Wikipedia ambiguity, we forego Wikipedia disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Viking Wind Farm (Shetland Islands) → Viking Wind Farm – The article was moved from its current title to Viking Wind Farm. However, it was moved back by other editor with edit summary "Another wind farm with same name exists http://www.thewindpower.net/windfarm_en_3042_viking.php - clarify which one as per WP:TITLE Since no two art...". This is true that another project exists; however, there is no article with this name. Therefore, there is no need to include Shetland Islands in the title, and per WP:TITLE the common name should be used. Beagel (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you propose for the other "viking wind farm", it still exists, even if an article hasn't been written. Oranjblud (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hub height; rotor diameter and total capacity

Just to answer questions:

1) The source provides hub height (90m) and turbine total height (145m). That means that the rotor diameter is 2*(145-90)=110m 2) 370 or 371 depends how you rounding it. The exact figure for 103 turbines is 103*3.6 = 370.8. Most of media sources have rounded it to 370, but more precise is 371 as used e.g. by ReCharge. If you prefer to have 370.8MW, I have nothing against it

I don't understand why this the information about turbines was removed from the infobox. Reducing the number of turbines does not change the turbines specification; it may change only cost, area or construction time. Therefore I will restore the information in the infobox. Beagel (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Siemens doesn't make a 110m turbine.. That's why we shouldn't use synthesis. The figures may be approximations.

Also blade length = (rotor diameter - blade hub diamater)/2 ..(garbled irrelvevant)

The turbines could be a 107m blade length machine Siemens.com SWT 103 3.6 (speculation), which siemens do make. Or not. Specifactions change -this would be speculation.

Also 3.6 x 103 - 370.8 - this is synthesis based simple multiplication. The figure of 3.6 MW is given to two significant figures, thus any multiple of it should also be given to 2 sig figs. I think the 370.8MW figure reported by ReCharge is based on this mutliplication, and is poor technical reporting.

I have not objection to stating that the maximum tip height is 145m as that is verifyable from reliable sources.Oranjblud (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Recharge says 371 which is more precise as 370. Actually, this is simple arithmetics as the total capacity of the wind farm is a sum of turbines' capacities. As different sources report that the turbine capacity of 3.6, this is indeed simple multiplication but has nothing to do with synthesis. Beagel (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The "recharge" sources should know better than quoting a value to more significant figures than can be reliably quoted... I assume it is a generally reliable source you are familiar with.Oranjblud (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we can't wait for official facts about the built wind farm to be published?

Siemens ?

quote (removed):

The wind farm is to install includes 103 Siemens Wind Power 3.6 MW turbines.

The link is dead and doesn't show up on archive.org. I couldn't find another reference to the contract - which is very odd.. Could this have been a mistake on the website ?

Please fix if correct (with a working reference) Thanks.. Xiiophen (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No mention on the official website - almost certainly wrong - by the time the wind farm is developed (if) the Siemens 3.6MW may not even be available.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Viking Wind Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016092624/http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013CSOH158.html to http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013CSOH158.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)