initial feedback from the conference, page-11

Your 'brief lunch times' are golden. A superb report, BB, and the conference proper has not even yet started! You must have the right personal technique for extracting information, and you had done your homework before approaching them. Full marks. Take note peoples.

Much of our analysis of CWE activities has to be somewhat theoretical modeling (technicalities, financials, and politics) but when we get direct information such as from BB's input the models can be more firmly pinned to reality. This is a great opportunity.

A technical point. The buoyancy of the actuator exists only to keep it in the top of the oscillating wave medium, i.e. should be little more than neutrally buoyant. (Approx 1 tonne upthrust in ~110 tonnes weight as you calculate correctly.) The actuator is then dragged up with the rising wave rather than through buoyant upthrust. Having a larger underside area increases the total upward force on the piston arm considerably; hence the flattened spheroid. The vertical dimension of the float cannot be too great as it has to match the natural motions of the water at both the top and bottom surfaces (the diameter of the water particle orbits decreases as you go down). Hope this makes sense. Hence there may be good reason for having a slightly flexible membrane covering (neoprene?). The exact shape (degree of flattening), may change with further development of CETO III. Suggest ask about this.

Another possible factor they may or may not have considered is the resonance effect - trying to tune the natural frequency of the mass of the buoy to that of the wave for the purpose of extracting maximum energy. Note that Francis Farley's horizontal resonant tube (1.5 m dia snake?) proposes to do that.

Some further questions that could be asked at at 'brief lunch hours':

1. The $36 - 40M for the 5 MW small plant seems a bit expensive. Does this include the setting up and tooling of manufacturing plant that will later also be used for larger scale production?

2. The wave heights mentioned for Albany, were they the extremes as in, 'up to 14m ....' or are they commonly large amplitude? How much and why are the wave amplitudes at Albany significantly different from Garden Is? Is it depth related or is it the shape of the local ocean floor that focusses the waves at Albany?

3. Has CWE given much consideration to artificially focussing wave to increase the amplitude? I suspect not as it is probably cheaper to go to a heavier wave climate location rather than change the shape of the seabed.

4. What is meant by $1.5 M for undersea foundation? Does it involve smoothing of sea bed or just elaborate anchor points to distribute the load? They may want to test a few to destruction.

Written in some haste as I have to be elsewhere. Hope it helps a little. Success tomorrow.

Juke