NASA’s first experimental wind turbine in Sandusky, Ohio

We’ve all been tempted. Some of us have tried it more than once.

For some reason, it never crossed Larry Viterna’s mind to type his own name into a search engine until late last year. An accomplished NASA engineer and manager with a Ph.D., he could expect to find plenty of entries.

But when Viterna finally Googled himself, he could hardly believe the results: hundreds of references to an analytical model he developed in 1981 to predict the power generated by wind turbines during high winds. These clean and efficient machines look like enormous fans and convert wind into electricity.

At the time of publication, wind energy experts had dismissed his theory. “It was quite controversial because it contradicted existing theories,” Viterna said. “I was known around the world as a bit of a quack.”

Viterna and NASA got involved in wind energy during the energy crisis of the 1970s. Increased consumption and an oil embargo against the United States and other western countries had contributed to record-high gas prices and lines at the pump. In response, President Richard Nixon set up a federal task force to explore renewable energy sources, such as solar panels, hydrogen and wind turbines.

With funding from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, NASA constructed and operated its first experimental wind turbine at Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio. Throughout the program, NASA developed a total of 13 experimental wind turbines.

“It was a fun project,” said Viterna, who led the aerodynamics team from 1978 to 1981. “Wind energy was a very hot topic. It was key in the minds of Americans, and we were right in the middle of leading the effort.”

A major design flaw in those days was rooted in fixed-pitch blades. Viterna and Bob Corrigan used data from their tests to reverse engineer an analytical model to predict power in high winds. Viterna and Corrigan presented the model that year at an international workshop, where it received a tepid response.

The wind energy program ended later that year, and both engineers moved along in their careers. Viterna became NASA Glenn’s Lead for Center Strategy and Business Development, and Corrigan went on to manage an International Space Station support project.

Recently — on a whim, Viterna searched the Internet for his name and the word “wind.” He learned that experts in the wind energy field now commonly refer to the analytical model as “Viterna & Corrigan” or “the Viterna method.”

Twenty-five years after publishing their paper, the two engineers are being recognized for their work. Both of them received a Space Act Award from NASA’s Inventions and Contributions Board. And in June, Viterna will accept a Blue Marble Award at NASA’s Environmental and Energy Conference.

To top it all off, last August, the Department of Energy approved the code as part of its design tools for worldwide certification of wind turbines.

Too bad the politicians in charge of scientific budgets and decisions on energy couldn’t see beyond their noses — or the next election — in 1981. I don’t think the crowd in Washington, today, is any better.



  1. forrest says:

    About damn time this guy is recognized for his accomplishments. Too bad this country will never fully utilize his research to it’s fullest.

  2. Roc Rizzo says:

    “Too bad the politicians in charge of scientific budgets and decisions on energy couldn’t see beyond their noses — or the next election — in 1981. I don’t think the crowd in Washington, today, is any better.”

    You sure got that correct. Some of them can’t spell ‘science.’ Some of them think that because evolution is “only a” theory, that it’s not fact. A few even argue about gravity.

    If they were concerned about science, there would be cures for every disease, we would have cars that run on a drop of water and cost pennies to maintain, there would be much better mass transit, we would not had such devistation in the Gulf Coast, and we would have a colony on Mars already. That’s only to mention a few.

    Instead we waste money on wars of choice, borrow money from China to buy oil from the Middle East. Our lawmakers think that banning gay marriage, and flag burning are more important than the people who go hungry every day, the people who need health care, and cannot afford it. They would rather pass bills to give billions in tax cuts to people who can afford to pay higher taxes, rather than balancing the budget, and giving more money to education, science, and research and development projects.

    A few years ago, there was a proposal to build a super collider here in the Hudson Valley. Since people are so paranoid, worried about “their” land, and not well educated, the project went by the wayside. In such an environment, had the people been more educated, as well as be more willing to be educated, we would have had a nice physics research center here. A lot of people are not willing to learn because it’s work, and they want instant gratification. Blame whoever you will, it all comes back to you and me, talking about education, and the need for more scientific research. Our country used to be the leader in research, we keep falling more and more behind, quickly becoming a third world technological power.

    Okay, I’m off my soap box now. Have at it…

  3. Mr. H. Fusion says:

    I’ve often wondered and I hope someone can answer why wind turbines usually only have three blades. Would it not be more efficient and harness more power to have many more blades? Sure the mass would be greater to start moving but there would also be a corresponding increase in the amount of area for the wind to push against?

  4. art says:

    #2 Couldn’t agree more!!!

  5. Eideard says:

    #3 — the short answer is balance, turbulence, motion dynamics. Here’s some detail.

  6. Tom Van Hoose says:

    I’ve heard of the “cars running on water” stuff, but I haven’t really looked into it. It sounds too good to be true.

    That said, I mostly agree with #2. I recently watched a documentary called Kilowatt Ours, where they showed people using current technology able to live off the grid in their homes (or living on the grid and selling back their own excess energy back to the power company) for an investment off arounf $20k iirc.

    We truly live in interesting times, and I still think we can solve all the problems facing us.

  7. Jim Tomlin says:

    Wow — thank you, Eideard! That Danish Wind Industry Association web site is fascinating. A real find.

  8. Pete says:

    We’ve getting a proliferation of these wind turbines in the UK, there are lots of them on top of Welsh mountains would you believe – I think they look quite beautiful actually, like huge white sculptures

    Mind you, the one thing we really could get the most use of in the UK is wave power (as we’re a little island) but all that stuff is still on the drawing board… shame

  9. joshua says:

    check out Scotland sometime as well Pete…….wind is going up all over the place.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 10229 access attempts in the last 7 days.