Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
79563-5
SPECIFICATION
Title of the Invention
GREENHOUSE WINDBREAK MECHANISM
Technical Field
[0001]
The present invention relates to a greenhouse windbreak
mechanism which is less prone to collapses of cultivation
greenhouses, even when the greenhouse windbreak mechanism is
installed along with sunlight-parallel-use type cultivation
greenhouses with relatively lower strength and is subjected to
strong monsoons or storm winds caused by tropical cyclones such
as typhoons. Another aspect of the present invention relates
to a greenhouse windbreak mechanism capable of realizing
environments which facilitate the growth of plants.
Background Art
[0002]
Cultivation greenhouses prevent vegetables within the
greenhouses from being directly influenced by external air,
which enables controlling environments other than sunlight,
such as temperature, humidity, air flows and watering, thereby
stabilizing production and product quality, in comparison with
outdoor cultivations which are directly influenced by
atmospheric temperature and weather. Cultivation greenhouses
1
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
of sunlight-use types which utilize only sunlight and
cultivation greenhouses of sunlight-parallel-use types which
partially utilize photonic synthesis through sunlight are
popular, since they enable cultivations in season-shift manners
and sales with higher prices, in comparison with
complete-control type plant factories which perform photonic
synthesis only through artificial light sources without
utilizing sunlight. Cultivation greenhouses generally
include plastic greenhouses and glass greenhouses and have been
installed in various areas, as well as in cold areas in Japan,
at the present time.
[0003]
A plastic greenhouse includes iron pipes or wooden
members as its frames and also is covered at its outer walls
with synthetic resin films made of polyethylene, polyvinyl
chloride or the like. Plastic greenhouses are reduced in
transmittance, since the resin films therein are degraded by
ultraviolet rays in sunlight, which necessitate replacement of
these films at regular time intervals. However, these plastic
greenhouses are more inexpensive than glass greenhouses
provided with large-sized and heavy glass plates and are used
in wider ranges than those of glass greenhouses. Plastic
greenhouses necessitate replacement of resin films at regular
time intervals and, furthermore, have the problem of the
occurrence of damages of crops therein and collapse of the
2
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
greenhouses themselves in the event that the vinyl films are
fractured by strong winds. This problem is also induced in
glass greenhouses more than a little.
[0004]
As a countermeasure against collapse of vinyl greenhouses,
in JP-A No. 9 - 51729, beams are formed from iron pipes with larger
thicknesses, similarly to the supporting columns, and nets or
vinyl sheets integrated with tension-construction wires are
mounted to the outer sides of greenhouses. In JP-A No.
2001-95397, films or nets which are attached to greenhouses are
enabled to be completely eliminated or upwardly wound
immediately before the occurrence of typhoons, further two
films are provided and stretched such that they overlap with
each other, arch pipes arranged in conformance to a ridge are
bound to one another at their center portions through
reinforcing ropes, and these ropes are coupled, at their
opposite ends, to a vertical frame pipe. In JP-A No. 2002-78421,
poles are erected outside outer-peripheral poles constituting
a greenhouse framework with intervals provided therebetween,
pipes are coupled to both the poles therebetween for reinforcing
them with each other, and this framework is placed at a
predetermined interval from the greenhouse in the
circumferential direction and is coupled to the greenhouse.
Prior Art Literature
3
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
Patent Literature
[0005]
Patent Literature 1: JP-A No. 9-51729
Patent Literature 2: JP-A No. 2001-95397
Patent Literature 3: JP-A No. 2002-78421
Non-patent Literature
(0006]
Non-Patent Literature 1: Masaki Takatsuji, The Basic and
Practices of Plant Factories", Shoka Shobo
Summary of Invention
Problems to be Solved by the Invention
[0007]
Most of countermeasures against strong winds and storm
winds for plastic greenhouses involve reinforcing frames as
described above. In this case, vinyl films are laminated in
two layers or three layers in many cases. In cases of glass
greenhouses, similarly, glass plates are merely laminated in
two layers. Therefore, strong winds directly impinge on the
vinyl films or nets in the plastic greenhouses, which tends to
damage the vinyl films or nets, even though the frame is
reinforced for preventing their collapse. Even when vinyl
sheets integrated with tension-construction wires are employed
as in JP-A No. 9-51729 or even when agricultural
polyolef in-based films or fluorocarbon resin films are provided
4
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
79563-5
in a stretched manner, instead of deteriorative polyvinyl chloride films, in
order to
prevent the fracture of the films, it is impossible to overcome the problem.
Even in
cases of glass greenhouses, the glass plates may break.
[0008]
Some embodiments of the present invention was suggested in order
to overcome the aforementioned problems in conventional plastic greenhouses
and aims at providing a greenhouse windbreak mechanism capable of preventing
cultivation greenhouses from being collapsed even in the event of strong
winds. It
is another object of some embodiments of the present invention to provide a
greenhouse windbreak mechanism capable of continuously introducing, into
greenhouses, external air closer to slight winds, even under strong-wind
conditions. It is still another object of some embodiments of the present
invention
to provide a greenhouse windbreak mechanism capable of realizing environments
close to sunbeams streaming through leaves which facilitate the growth of
plants.
Means for Solving the Problems
[0009]
A first aspect of the present invention provides a greenhouse
windbreak mechanism comprising: a windbreak fence which surrounds at least one
cultivation greenhouse and is annularly placed to be erected with a height
larger
than that of the at least one cultivation greenhouse; a ventilation portion
which is
formed, at an upper portion of the windbreak fence, to have a predetermined
longitudinal width from an upper end of the windbreak fence and includes a
plurality
of through holes which are dispersedly placed; and a plurality of baffle
plates which
form the plurality of through holes in an entire surface or partially for
passing strong
5
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
79563-5
winds therethrough when the plurality of baffle plates are laterally placed
above the
at least one cultivation greenhouse; wherein the ventilation portion and the
plurality
of baffle plates alleviate strong winds intruding into the inside of the green
house
windbreak mechanism by getting around the upper end of the windbreak fence,
when the strong winds impinge on the windbreak fence.
A second aspect of the present invention provides a greenhouse
windbreak mechanism according to the first aspect, wherein the ventilation
portion
is formed to have a longitudinal width of 50 to 200 mm from the upper end of
the
windbreak fence.
A third aspect of the present invention provides a greenhouse
windbreak mechanism according to the first aspect, wherein when strong winds
pass through the baffle plates, the average wind speed value thereof is
reduced
to 24 to 32%.
A fourth aspect of the present invention provides a greenhouse
windbreak mechanism according to the first aspect, wherein the lateral width
of
the baffle plates is larger than the longitudinal width of the ventilation
portion.
A fifth aspect of the present invention provides a greenhouse
windbreak mechanism according to the first aspect, wherein in the placement of
the baffle plates in a plane at an upper portion of the greenhouse windbreak
mechanism, the baffle plates are arranged at equal intervals in the
longitudinal
and lateral directions and in a brace shape, in their entirety.
A sixth aspect of the present invention provides a greenhouse
windbreak mechanism according to the first aspect, wherein a windbreak fence
is
made of a transparent or semi-transparent material.
6
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
79563-5
A seventh aspect of the present invention provides a greenhouse
windbreak mechanism according to the first aspect, wherein the windbreak fence
is vertically fixed by supporting column which is vertically erected on the
ground.
An eighth aspect of the present invention provides a greenhouse
windbreak mechanism according to the first aspect, wherein an openable
ventilating door is mounted at a portion of the windbreak wall.
A ninth aspect of the present invention provides a greenhouse
windbreak mechanism comprising a windbreak fence, a column and a plurality of
baffle plates, and vinyl or glass forming a plastic or glass greenhouse
installed
inside the greenhouse windbreak mechanism being colored in a color having a
spectrum in which spectral radiances of visible light of colors other than a
color
which reflects red light and a color which reflects far infrared light are
smaller than
those of the red light and the far infrared light, wherein brightness with
light intensity
equal to or more than photosynthesis-rate saturation light intensities for
vegetables
to be cultivated in the greenhouse is ensured, and the red-light/blue-light
ratio is
higher than that of bare grounds and the red-light/far-infrared-light ratio is
lower than
that of bare grounds in a cultivation environment in the greenhouses.
7
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
79563-5
Effects of the Invention
[0010]
The greenhouse windbreak mechanism according to some
embodiments of the present invention is capable of preventing crops in
greenhouses from being damaged and preventing the cultivation greenhouses
from being collapsed when the greenhouses are subjected to strong monsoons or
storm winds caused by tropical cyclones such as typhoons, thereby enabling
stably supplying vegetables even during years including many adverse weather
conditions. With the greenhouse windbreak mechanism according to some
embodiments of the present invention, it is possible to enable normal plastic
greenhouses
8
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
79563-5
to withstand in strong winds, thereby providing greenhouses
with excellent durability more cheaply than glass greenhouses.
The greenhouses constructed inside the fence are greenhouses
with a height of about 2 m and a longitudinal width of about
3 m, and these greenhouses have smaller capacities therein per
unit area, which provides the advantage that the fuel cost for
warming up during winter seasons is reduced by an amount
corresponding to the reduction of the capacity.
Sunlight impinges on the fence, the poles and the baffle
plates and is reflected thereby, which makes the R/B ratio
larger than that in bare grounds and makes the R/FR ratio smaller
than that in bare grounds, in the sunlight spectrum. This
provides the effect of changing the spectrum of sunlight to
increase the amount of crops. Further, by coloring the fence,
the poles and the baffle plates in a mixed color constituted
by red light (R) and infrared red light (FR), it is possible
to change the photo ratio more largely. The windbreak mechanism
can be used as equipment capable of offering the effect
utilizing the fact.
Brief Description of Drawings
[0011]
Fig. 1 is a schematic perspective view illustrating an
example of a greenhouse windbreak mechanism according to
an embodiment of the present invention.
9
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
Fig. 2 is a side view and a plan view schematically
illustrating a device for windbreak experiments which utilizes
an axial fan.
Fig. 3 is a schematic explanation view of a case where
baffle plates were installed at intervals of 3000 mm in
consideration of the change of the direction of winds.
Fig. 4 is a schematic explanation view illustrating the
positional relationship between a perforated portion and baffle
plates within a windbreak fence.
Fig. 5 is a side view and a plan view schematically
illustrating a device for windbreak experiments similar to that
in Fig. 2.
Fig. 6 is a partial plan view illustrating an example of
a perforated baffle plate.
Fig. 7 is a partial plan view illustrating another example
of the perforated baffle plate.
Fig. 8 is a partial plan view illustrating still another
example of the perforated baffle plate.
Fig. 9 is a partial plan view illustrating yet another
example of the perforated baffle plate.
Fig. 10 is a view illustrating a device for windbreak
experiments including baffle plates placed along diagonal lines,
similarly to Fig. 2.
Fig. 11 is a view illustrating another device for
windbreak experiments including baffle plates placed along
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
79563-5
diagonal lines, similarly to Fig. 2.
Fig. 12 is a view illustrating a device for windbreak
experiments including measurements points set at positions
below the upper end portion of the windbreak wall by 200 mm,
400 mm, 600 mm and 800 mm, similarly to Fig. 2.
Fig. 13 is a schematic explanation view illustrating a
state where forty cultivation greenhouses are surrounded by a
windbreak fence in the greenhouse windbreak mechanism according
to an embodiment of the present invention.
Fig. 14 is a framing elevation of each row of poles in
the greenhouse windbreak mechanism in Fig. 13, in the
longitudinal direction.
Fig. 15 is a framing elevation of each row of poles in
the greenhouse windbreak mechanism in Fig. 13, in the lateral
direction.
Fig. 16 is a view of the placement of the baffle plates
in the greenhouse windbreak mechanism in Fig. 13, including the
directions of the diagonal lines.
Fig. 17 is a view of the placement of braces for providing
required strength to the windbreak fence in the greenhouse
windbreak mechanism in Fig. 13.
Fig. 18 is a detailed view of the mounting of the baffle
plats in the directions of the diagonal lines.
Fig. 19 is a partial plan view illustrating the mounting
of the baffle plates to one another and the mounting of the baffle
11
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
plates to the windbreak fence.
Fig. 20 is a partial side view illustrating the windbreak
fence and the poles in an enlarging manner.
Fig. 21 is a partial side view illustrating the other
portions than the windbreak fence and the poles in an enlarging
manner.
Fig. 22 is an explanation view illustrating blows of winds
in the greenhouse windbreak mechanism.
Fig. 23 is an explanation view for measurement of the wind
speeds of blowing winds.
Fig. 24 is a partial plan view illustrating an example
of the perforated baffle plate.
Fig. 25 is a partial plan view illustrating another
example of the perforated baffle plate.
Fig. 26 is a partial plan view illustrating still another
example of the perforated baffle plate.
Fig. 27 is a partial plan view illustrating yet another
example of the perforated baffle plate.
Fig. 28 is a partial plan view illustrating yet another
example of the perforated baffle plate.
Fig. 29 illustrates a cultivation greenhouse G-B: a
greenhouse constituted by a plastic subjected to spraying of
red-color paint until its transmittance reached 46.4%.
Fig. 30 is a spectrum of red-color waterborne paint.
Fig. 31 is a spectrum of a tint pink plastic.
12
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
Fig. 32 illustrates a cultivation greenhouse [8] : normal
plastic greenhouse.
Fig. 33 is a spectrum of the actions of photoreactions
of plants.
Fig. 34 illustrates a cultivation greenhouse [14].
Fig. 35 is a spectrum of a red-color oil-based paint.
Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention
[0012]
Next, an embodiment of the present invention will be
described with reference to the drawings.
Fig. 1 illustrates a greenhouse windbreak mechanism 1
according to the present invention. The greenhouse windbreak
mechanism 1 includes a windbreak fence 3 or a windbreak wall
with rectangular plane which surround one or more plastic
greenhouses 2 or glass greenhouses, and the height of the
windbreak fence is set to be much higher than that of the
greenhouses 2. Usually, the windbreak fence 3 is secured to
a metal frame (not illustrated) including poles installed
vertically on the ground and, when the windbreak fence 3 is
vertically installed, usually, the windbreak fence 3 has the
same height over its entirety, but its height can be partially
changed.
[0013]
The windbreak fence 3 is provided, at its upper portion,
13
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
with a ventilation portion 5 or a perforated portion with a
predetermined longitudinal width. The ventilation portion 5
may either be formed as a perforated portion by providing plural
through holes 6 directly in the upper portion of the windbreak
fence 3 or be formed by horizontally mounting, thereto, thin
and long perforated baffle plates separated from the windbreak
wall. The windbreak fence 3 is formed from corrugated plates
or sheets which are made of polyolefin, polyvinyl chloride,
polycarbonate or the like and is transparent or semitransparent
in order not to interrupt sunlight to the green houses 2 and,
also, may be properly colored in order to pass, therethrough,
large amounts of certain visible light rays for facilitating
the growth of plants.
[0014]
The baffle plates 7 are thin and long plate members
provided with a plurality of through holes 8 over its entire
surface or partially, and the respective baffle plates 7 are
placed laterally and arranged vertically on the upper end of
the windbreak fence 3 to provide large interstices in their
entirety to provide a structure which allows strong winds to
pass therethrough in the vertical direction and, also, prevents
sunlight to the greenhouses 2 from being interrupted more than
needed. Although the baffle plates 7 have a combination of
plane placement of rectangular shapes and diagonal lines in Fig.
1, it is also possible to place them in a plane, in a parallel
14
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
manner, in a lattice shape, a zigzag shape and the like. The
baffle plates 7 are made of metal plates or veneer plates which
are colored in a desired color or may be also made of transparent
plastic plates provided with through holes.
[00151
In suggesting the greenhouse windbreak mechanism 1,
typhoons were taken into account, as well as monsoons, as winds
to be broken. Typhoons are tropical cyclones which are
ascending air currents and, therefore, are imaged as blowing
obliquely upwardly when they are viewed in a wide range, but,
in local areas, they blow horizontally in parallel with the
ground when the ground is a flatland, similarly to monsoons.
Accordingly, if the plastic houses are surrounded by a high wall,
the wall obstructs strong winds and changes winds around the
wall to slight winds, but strong winds blow into the inside of
the wall by getting around the wall at positions farther from
the wall. Their tendency to blow thereinto by getting around
is increased with increasing areas surrounded by the wall. If
a forest is formed by tree planting inside of the wall, branches
and leaves of trees interrupt winds, thereby alleviating their
blowing into the inside of the wall, as a matter of course.
Accordingly, baffle plates were mounted instead of tree
planting at constant intervals, and experiments were conducted
for determining whether or not the baffle plates had a windbreak
effect.
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
79563-5
[00161
(Experiments in a Typhoon Model)
In experiments, horizontal strong winds were generated
by a commercially-available axial fan 50 (Fig. 2). Fig. 2
schematically illustrates the positions of the axial fan 50,
perforated plates and baffle plates (see the marks of X) in a
side plane in the horizontal direction and, also, illustrates
their positions in a plane in the longitudinal direction. In
Fig. 2, in front of the axial fan 50 having a diameter of 800
mm, the perforated plates with a lateral width of 1000 mm were
vertically erected at predetermined intervals, such that the
frontmost perforated plate was in contact, at its lower end side,
with the upper end side of a windbreak wall 52 (corresponding
to the windbreak fence). This perforated plate was a holed
portion 54 of the windbreak wall 52, and the perforated plates
positioned therebehind corresponded to baffle plates 56 and 56.
The tip end sides of the holed portion 54 and both the baffle
plates 56 were put below the peripheral upper end of the fan
by 185.4 mm, and measurements for the windbreak effect were
conducted. The axial fan 50 generated lower wind forces at its
center and periphery and, therefore, the holed portion 54 and
the baffle plates 56 were placed such that they were deviated
from the center of the axial fan 50, and their surfaces were
parallel with the fan surface.
[0017]
16
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
79563-5
The aforementioned perforated iron plates had a thickness
of 3 mm, a hole diameter of 10 mm and a hole pitch of 15 mm and
corresponded to the holed portion 54 and the baffle plates 56.
In order to determine how much the wind speed could be reduced
with these perforated iron plates, the perforated iron plates
with a lateral width of 600 mm and a longitudinal width of 1800
mm were vertically installed in parallel with one another in
front of the axial fan 50 at 400 mm therefrom, and an anemometer
was installed behind the perforated iron plates at 50 mm
therefrom and, thus, measurements were conducted for the wind
speeds before and after these perforated iron plates. As a
result of the measurements, the wind speed was in the range of
5.23 to 4.36 m/s and the average was 4.80 m/s just behind the
perforated iron plates, while the wind speed was 10.5 m/s just
front of the perforated iron plates and, therefore, the average
passed wind speed ratio was 45.710. As a result thereof, it
was revealed that the used perforated iron plates could reduce
the wind speed to equal to or less than about half, in general.
(0018)
Fig. 2 illustrates a case where the perforated portion
54 and the baffle plates 56 (see the marks of X) were mounted
at intervals of 1000 mm, wherein the total number of them was
3. The perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 had a
longitudinal width of 100 mm (Table 1) , 200 mm (Table 2) or 300
mm (Table 3) , and their upper end sides were below the peripheral
17
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
upper end of the axial fan 50 by 185.4 mm. In the height
direction, a measurement point A was above the upper end side
of the windbreak wall 52 by 50 mm, namely below the peripheral
upper end of the axial fan 50 by 135.4 mm. A measurement point
C was at a height equal to 1/2 that of the windbreak fence 52,
and a measurement point B was at a height midway between those
of the measurement points A and C. In Table 1, the lengths in
the left field indicate horizontal distances from the windbreak
wall 52, each indicating a measurement position for the wind
speed. In the respective cases, measurements were conducted
for determining how the wind speed of winds blowing into the
inside of the baffle plates 56 changed.
[0019]
The results of measurements for wind speeds with the
device illustrated in Fig. 2 are illustrated in Tables 1 to 3
as follows. These results can be compared with the case of Table
4 regarding a device structure which includes only the windbreak
wall 52 without being equipped with the perforated portion 54
and the baffle plates 56. The data was converted into speed
reduction ratios (%), in order to enable clear comparison
therebetween. The Speed Reduction Ratio (%) = (Measurement
Value B or C / Measurement Value A) x 100, wherein the
speed-reduction-ratio conversion table for the left side of
Table 1 is in the right side of Table 1, the
speed-reduction-ratio conversion table for the left side of
18
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
Table 2 is in the right side of Table 2, the
speed-reduction-ratio conversion table for the left side of
Table 3 is in the right side of Table 3, and the
speed-reduction-ratio conversion table for the left side of
Table 4 is in the right side of Table 4.
[0020]
The Longitudinal Width of the Baffle Plates: 100 mm
[Table 1]
Measured Wind-seed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
50mm 7.01 0.69 0.54 50mm 90.2 92.3
500mm 4.69 1.07 0. 78 500mm 77.2 83.4
950mm 3. 7 1.33 0,88 950mm 64. 1 76.2
1050mm 3.63 1.27 0.83 1050mm 65 77.1
1500mm 3.11 1.14 0.72 1500mm 63.6 76.8
1950mm 1.94 0.94 0.66 1950mm 51.5 66
Remark
. The aforementioned values A, B and C
were resulted from measurements along
the center line L of wooden box.
= The aforementioned values indicate
maximum instantaneous wind speeds during
measurements at the respective
measurement points.
X The used iron plates had a
thickness of 3 mm, a hole diameter of
010 mm and a hole pitch of 15 mm.
[0021]
The Longitudinal Width of the Baffle Plates: 200 mm
19
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[Table 2]
Measured Wind-s eed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
A B C B C
50mm 6.99 0.74 0.59 50mm 89.4 91.6
500mm 4.62 1.32 0.82 500mm 71.4 82.3
950mm 3.65 1.48 0.94 950mm 59.5 74.2
1050mm 3.51 1.34 0.86 1050mm 61.8 75.5
1500mm 3.07 1.19 0.77 1500mm 61.1 74.9
1950mm 1.89 0.88 0.65 1950mm 53.4 65.6
Remark
. The aforementioned values A, B and C
were resulted from measurements along
the center line L of wooden box.= The
aforementioned values indicate maximum
instantaneous wind speeds during
measurements at the respective
measurement points.
The used iron plates had a
thickness of 3 mm, a hole diameter of
010 mm and a hole pitch of 15 mm.
[0022]
The Longitudinal Width of the Baffle Plates: 300 mm
[Table 3]
Measured Wind-speed Value (m/s)
A B C B C
50mm 7.05 3.68 0.61 50mm 47.8 91.3
500mm 4.71 2.77 1.88 500mm 41.2 60.1
950mm 3.61 1.94 1.66 950mm 46.3 54
1050mm 3.49 0.92 1.62 1050mm 73.6 53.6
1500mm 3.09 0.86 1.24 1500mm 72.2 59.9
1950mm 1.91 0.67 1.03 1950mm 64.9 46.1
Remark
The aforementioned values A, B and C were
resulted from measurements along the center
line L of wooden box.
= The aforementioned values indicate maximum
instantaneous wind speeds during measurements
at the respective measurement points.
X The used iron plates had a thickness of 3
mm, a hole diameter of 4 10 mm and a hole
pitch of 15 mm.
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0023]
[Table 4]
Measured Wind-speed Value (m/s) Speed Reduction Ratio (%)
A B C B C
50mm 6.94 1.82 1.07 50mm 73.8 84.6
500mm 4.84 1.34 1.28 500mm 72.3 73.6
1000mm 3.84 1.78 1.7 1000mm 53.6 55.7
1500 m m 3.41 1.67 1. 58 1500 m m 51 53.7
2000mm 2. 11 1.57 1.49 2000mm 25.6 29.4
2500mm 1.89 1.28 1. 11 2500mm 32.3 41.3
3000mm 1.68 1.25 0.98 3000mm 25.6 41.7
3500mm 1.23 1.21 0.96 3500mm 1.6 22
Remark
The aforementioned values A, B and C were
resulted from measurements along the center
line L of wooden box.
= The aforementioned values indicate maximum
instantaneous wind speeds during measurements
at the respective measurement point.
(4) [0024]
In the case of the longitudinal width 100 mm in Table 1,
winds passed through the perforated portion 54 had been reduced
in speed from 7.01 M/ S to 0.69 m/ s at the measurement point B
at a measurement position of 50 mm, and winds passed through
the first baffle plate 56 had been reduced in speed from 3.63
m/s to 1.27 m/s at the measurement point B at a measurement
position of 1050 mm. The baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal
width 100 mm could reduce the wind speed at the portion at the
measurement point B by smaller amounts than those of the baffle
plates with the longitudinal width 200 mm. In the case of the
baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal width 300 mm, the speed
of winds passed through the perforated baffle plate at the
measurement point B was only about half that of the winds which
21
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
had not passed therethrough. This is because the height
position of the measurement point B was placed above the lower
end sides of the baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal width
300 mm and, therefore, winds passed through these baffle plates
directly impinged thereon, which degraded the accuracy of the
measurement values. Further, the results indicate that, at the
measurement point B, the baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal
width 100 mm had a larger effect of reducing the wind speed than
that of the baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal width 200
mm. This is because the measurement point B was farther from
the lower end sides of these baffle plates 56, not because they
had a larger effect of reducing the wind speed.
[0025]
By comparing Tables 1 to 3 with Table 4, it was revealed
that the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 with
the longitudinal widths of 100 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm could all
have the effect of reducing the wind speed. In descending order
of the speed reduction effect at the measurement point C
farthest from the lower end sides of the perforated portion 54
and the baffle plates 56, the longitudinal widths 100 mm, 200
mm and 300 mm can be arranged in the mentioned order. Referring
to Table 4, it was revealed that there was provided a larger
effect of reducing the wind speed around the windbreak wall 52
for breaking winds, but large amounts of winds blew thereinto
from the outside at positions farther from the windbreak wall.
22
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
For example, at the measurement point B, at a distance of 3.5
m from the windbreak wall 52, the wind speed was substantially
equal to that of the outside (the measurement point) A, and it
can be expected that, at the measurement point C, similarly,
at positions farther from the windbreak wall, the wind speed
was equal to that at the measurement point B. Since the wind
speed abruptly reduces around the perforated portion 54 and the
baffle plates 56, in order to alleviate winds blowing thereinto
from the outside, it is possible to put the baffle plates 56
closer to the windbreak wall including the perforated portion
54 and to reduce the intervals between the baffle plates 56 and,
extremely, it is possible to make the intervals between the
respective baffle plates 56 as close to zero as possible.
[0026]
In Fig. 2, while the perforated portion 54 and the baffle
plates 56 were installed at intervals of 1000 mm, experiments
were conducted for a case where they were mounted at intervals
of 1500 mm, starting from the windbreak wall 52. Table 5 which
will be illustrated hereinafter represents the results of
experiments for the case where the perforated portion 54 and
the baffle plates 56 with a longitudinal width of 100 mm were
installed at intervals of 1500 mm. The wind speed values in
the left part of Table 5 were converted into speed reduction
ratios (%) in the right part of Table 5. The calculation formula
was the formula described in the paragraph 0019. Hereinafter,
23
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
the same formula for the speed reduction ratio will be employed
and, therefore, the description thereof will be omitted.
[0027]
[Table 5]
Measured Wind Speed Value m s Speed Reduction Ratio
A B C B C
50mm 7.04 0.67 0.56 50mm 90.5 92
500mm 4.63 1.02 0.76 500mm 78 83.6
1000mm 3.61 1.42 0.91 1000mm 60.7 74.8
1450mm 3.23 1.29 0.74 1450mm 60.1 77.1
1550mm 3.03 1.24 0.7 1550mm 59.1 76.9
2000mrri 2.34 1.12 0.67 2000mm 52.1 9 71.4
2500mm 2.14 0.88 0.62 2500mm 58. 71
2950mm 1.78 0.85 0.59 2950mm 52.2 66.9
[0028]
In actual, the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates
56 were varied in longitudinal width among 100 mm, 200 mm and
300 mm, similarly to in Tables 1 to 3 and, in the respective
cases, determinations were made as to how the wind speed of winds
blowing into the inside of the windbreak wall 52 changed. By
comparing these results including Table 5 with Table 4, it was
revealed that in the case of intervals of 1500 mm between the
baffle plates, it was possible to provide the effect of reducing
the wind speed in any of the cases where the perforated portion
54 and the baffle plates 56 had the longitudinal widths 100 mm,
200 mm and 300 mm. For the same reason as that for the case
of intervals of 1000 mm between the baffle plates in Tables 1
to 3, the longitudinal width 300 mm could provide a smallest
wind-speed reducing effect, while the longitudinal widths 100
mm and 200 mm could provide substantially equal wind-speed
reducing effects.
24
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0029]
Next, experiments were conducted for a case where they
were mounted at intervals of 2000 mm and 3000 mm, starting from
the windbreak wall 52. Table 6 which will be illustrated
hereinafter illustrates the results of experiments for the case
where the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 with
a longitudinal width of 200 mm were installed at intervals of
2000 mm, while Table 7 which will be illustrated hereinafter
illustrates the results of experiments for the case where the
perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 with a
longitudinal width of 200 mm were installed at intervals of 3000
mm. In any of the cases, only one baffle plate 56 was used.
The wind speed values in the left part of Table 6 were converted
into speed reduction ratios (%) in the right part of Table 6,
and the left part of Table 7 was similarly converted into the
right part of Table 7.
[0030]
[Table 6]
Measured Wind S Deed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
A B C B C
50mm 7.14 0.69 0.55 50 mm 89.9 91.9
500mm 4.78 1.31 0.79 500mm 72.3 82.5
1000mm 3.59 1.5 0.98 1000mm 60.1 72.1
1500mm 3.36 1.36 0.87 1450mm 61.4 74.2
1950mm 2.38 1.22 0.74 1550mm 60 74.3
2050mm 2.18 1.11 0.67 2000mm 59.3 68.8
2500mm 1.96 0.84 0.6 2500m 61.8 70.5
3000mm 1.8 0.72 0.52 2950mm 61.9 68.5
3500mm 1.27 0.58 0.41
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0031]
[Table 7]
Measured Wind S eed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
A B C B C
50mm 7. 08 0.67 0.53 50mm 48 90.6
500mm 4.7 1.29 0.84 500mm 39.6 58.4
1000narn 3.76 1.54 1.01 1000narn 45.7 53,7
1500mm 3.37 1.37 0.89 1450mm 45.4 59.1
2000mm 2.32 1,26 0.77 1550mm 71.7 59,2
2500mm 1.98 1.18 0.68 2000mm 68.4 48.4
2950mm 1.77 1. 1 0.57 2500mm 68.6 51. 1
3050mm 1.74 1.03 0.51 2950mm 70.5 55.5
3500mm 1,34 0.76 0,44
[0032]
In actual, the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates
56 were varied in longitudinal width among 100 mm, 200 mm and
300 mm, similarly to in Tables 1 to 3 and, in the respective
cases, determinations were made as to how the wind speed of winds
blowing into the inside of the windbreak wall 52 changed. By
comparing the results in the right parts of Table 5, Table 6
and Table 7 with the right part of Table 4, it was revealed that,
in the cases of intervals of 2000 mm and intervals of 3000 mm
between the baffle plates, it was possible to provide the effect
of reducing the wind speed in any of the cases where the
perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 had the
longitudinal widths 100 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm. For the same
reason as that for the case of intervals of 1000 mm between the
baffle plates in Tables 1 to 3, the longitudinal width 300 mm
could provide a smallest wind-speed reducing effect, while the
longitudinal widths 100 mm and 200 mm could provide
26
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
substantially equal wind-speed reducing effects.
[0033]
In contemplating the results of the experiments regarding
the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56, the results
of the measurements in Table 4 regarding the case where only
the windbreak wall 52 was installed were cited as references.
Referring to Table 4, based on the ratio between the measurement
points A and B (which is referred to as a speed reduction ratio,
100- (B/A) x 100), the measurement positions at which the speed
reduction ratio was 50% or less were at 1500 mm or less, which
were distances from the windbreak wall which could change winds
at a wind speed of 50 m/s to winds at 25 m/s or less due to the
speed reduction ratio 50%. The measurement positions at which
the speed reduction ratio was 60%, which could change winds at
a wind speed of 50 m/s to winds at 20 m/s, were at 500 mm or
1000 mm.
[0034]
(Effective Intervals between the Baffle Plates)
On the other hand, when the perforated portion 54 was
formed, and the baffle plates 56 were installed, as can be
clearly seen from Tables 1 and 2 and Tables 5 to 7, in the case
where their longitudinal widths were 100 mm or 200 mm, and in
the cases of all the intervals, at all the measurement positions,
there were provided larger speed reduction ratios than those
of the results of measurements in Table 4 regarding the case
27
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
where only the windbreak wall 52 existed. In the case of the
intervals 2000 mm and 3000 mm between the baffle plates, the
speed reduction ratio could not reach 50% at the measurement
point B in many cases, but the speed reduction ratio was equal
to or more than 50% at all the measurement positions at the
measurement point C.
[0035]
As illustrated in Tables 1 to 3, when the perforated
portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 are installed, in the case
where their longitudinal widths are 100 mm or 200 mm, provided
that the intervals between the baffle plates are equal to or
less than 1500 mm, it is possible to structure inexpensive
greenhouses which have a high windbreak effect at both the
measurement points B and C (see the right parts of Table 1, Table
2 and Table 5) . Further, when the intervals between the baffle
plates are in the range of 2000 to 3000 mm, it is possible to
structure inexpensive plastic greenhouses which have a high
windbreak effect at the measurement point C (see the right parts
of Table 6 and Table 7).
[0036]
Referring to Tables 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, at the measurement
point B at a horizontal position of 50 mm from the windbreak
wall 52, the speed reduction ratio was highest in the case where
the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 had the
longitudinal widths 100 mm and 200 mm, while it was smallest
28
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
when their longitudinal width was 300 mm. This was because,
in the case of the longitudinal width 300 mm, the measurement
point B was at a higher vertical position than the lower end
sides of the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 and,
therefore, winds passed through the through holes in the
perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 directly impinged
on the measurement point B. In the case where the perforated
portion 54 had the longitudinal widths 100 mm and 200 mm, at
the measurement point B at a horizontal position of 50 mm from
the windbreak wall 52, the speed reduction ratio was higher than
in the case where only the windbreak wall 52 existed. This was
because, in the case where the perforated portion 54 had the
longitudinal width 100 mm or 200 mm, similarly to in the case
where only the windbreak wall 52 existed, winds tried to blow
thereinto in such a way as to be entangled therein, but at the
same time these winds were blown away by winds passed through
the through holes in the perforated portion 54, so that the winds
were prevented from blowing into the inside of the windbreak
wall. In this case, the reason why a wind speed was generated
at the measurement point at a distance of 50 mm from the windbreak
wall 52 was because of winds entangled in the winds which had
blown through the through holes in the perforated portion 54
having the longitudinal width 100 mm or 200 mm.
[0037]
In conclusion, by forming the perforated portion 54 at
29
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
the upper end portion of the windbreak wall 52 as illustrated
in Fig. 2, it is possible to reduce the wind speeds of winds
entangled into the portion in the rear of the windbreak wall
52. In this case, it is necessary to satisfy the condition that
the speeds of winds passed through the perforated portion 54
should be larger than the speeds of winds to be entangled therein.
With increasing hole ratio of the perforated portion 54, the
speeds of winds passed therethrough are increased. However,
if their wind speeds are excessively larger, the amount of
entanglement of winds passed through the through holes is
increased, but, in spite thereof, the speeds of entangled winds
can be reduced in comparison with the case where only the
windbreak wall 52 exists.
[0038)
The right part of Table 8 which will be illustrated
hereinafter is regarding a case where two baffle plates with
no perforation and with a longitudinal width of 200 mm were
installed at intervals of 1000 mm, in addition to a windbreak
wall 52 having no perforated portion. The baffle plates were
simply plate members with no through hole and, further, there
existed the windbreak wind 52 having no perforated portion. The
measured wind speed values in the right part of Table 8 are closer
to the measured values in the right part of Table 4 regarding
the case where no baffle plate was installed, than the measured
values in the right part of Table 2 regarding the corresponding
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
perforated baffle plates. Referring to the right part of Table
8, the baffle plates with no perforation had an obviously
inferior speed reducing ability in comparison with that of the
perforated baffle plates. By comparing it with the right part
of Table 4 regarding only the windbreak wall 52, it is revealed
that, even when the baffle plates with no perforation and with
the longitudinal width 100 mm or 200 mm were installed, this
case was substantially the same as the case where only the
windbreak wall 52 existed, and there was provided substantially
no speed reducing ability. The wind speed values in the left
part of Table 8 were converted into speed reduction ratios (%)
in the right part of Table 8.
[0039]
The Longitudinal Width of the Baffle Plates: 200 mm
[Table 8]
Measured Wind S eed Value (m/) s Seed Reduction Ratio 0
-- - A B C
B C
50mm 6.91 1.74 0.97 50mm 74.8 86
500mm 4.77 1.4 1.25 500mm 70.6 73.8
950mm 3.61 1.6 1.5 950mm 55.7 58.4
1050mm 3.36 1,48 1.43 1050 MM 56 57.4
1500 3.22 1.31 1.4 1500mm 59 3 56.5
1950 m 1,91 1.41 1.29 1950 26.2 32.5
[0040]
Table 9 illustrates measured wind speed values in a case
where two baffle plates with no perforation and with a
longitudinal width of 200 mm were installed at intervals of 1500
mm starting from the windbreak 52, Table 10 illustrates measured
wind speed values in a case where one such baffle plate was
31
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
installed at an interval of 2000 mm from the windbreak wall 52,
and Table 11 illustrates measured wind speed values in a case
where one such baffle plate was installed at an interval of 3000
mm from the windbreak wall 52. These baffle plates were simply
plate members with no through hole and, further, there existed
the windbreak wall 52 with no perforated portion. The results
of the measurements using the baffle plates with no perforation
at the intervals of 1500 mm (Table 9) and the interval of 2000
mm (Table 10) were similar to those of the intervals of 1000
mm, and the speed reduction ratios resulted therefrom were
obviously inferior to those of the perforated baffle plates and,
thus, these baffle plates with no perforation had substantially
no speed reducing ability. Further, even when the baffle plates
with no perforation have longitudinal widths of 100 mm and 300
mm, it is impossible to reduce the speed, similarly to in the
case of those with the longitudinal width 200 mm (Table 8) . As
a result, it has been revealed that the baffle plates with no
perforation have no speed reducing effect. The wind speed
values in the left part of Table 9 were converted into speed
reduction ratios (%) in the right part of Table 9, and the left
part of Table 10 was similarly converted into the right part
of Table 10. Further, the left part of Table 11 was converted
into the right part of Table 11.
[0041]
The Longitudinal Width of the Baffle Plates: 200 mm
32
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[Table 9]
Measured Wind Speed Value m s Speed Reduction Ratio
A B C B C
50mm 6.99 1.8 1.01 50mm 74.2 85.6
500mm 4.63 1.35 1.24 500mm 70.8 73.2
1000 m m 3. 55 1. 7 1. 54 1000 m m 52.1 56.6
1450mm 3.22 1.59 1.46 1450mm 50.6 54.7
1550mm 2.98 1.38 1.4 1550mm 53.7 53
2000mm 2.34 1.29 1.31 2000mm 44.9 44
2500mm 2.09 1. 3 1. 15 2500mm 37.8 45
2950mm 1. 77 1.27 0. 95 2950 28.2 46.3
[0042]
The Longitudinal Width of the Baffle Plates: 200 mm
[Table 10]
Measured Wind Speed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
A B C B C
50mm 7.17 1.79 1.02 50 75 85.8
500mm 4.83 1.33 1.26 500mm 72.5 73.9
1000 3.6 1.72 1.61 1000 52,2 55.3
1500mm 3.3 1.63 1.54 1500mm 50.6 53.3
1950mm 2.47 1. 51 1.46 1950 38.9 40.9
2050mm 2.21 1.39 1.43 2050mm 37.1 35.3
2500mm 1 98 1.27 1.15 2500mm 35.9 41.9
3000mm 1.8 1.24 1.03 3000mm 31.1 42.8
3500narn 1.31 1.18 0.95 3500mm 9.9 27.5
[0043]
The Longitudinal Width of the Baffle Plates: 200 mm
[Table 11]
Measured Wind Speed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
----- -- B C
A B C
50 6.95 1.81 1.04 50mm 74 85
500mm 4.65 1.35 1.29 500mm 71 72.3
1000 3.68 1.74 1.67 1000 52.7 54.6
1500mm 3.33 1.68 1.57 1500mm 49.5 52.9
2000 mm 2.21 1.6 1.48 2000mm 27.6 33
2500mm 1.9 1.31 1.13 2500mm 31,1 40.5
2950 1.71 1.27 1.05 2950mm 25.7 38.6
3050mm 1.66 1. 11 0.97 3050mm 33.1 58.4
3500mm 1.23 0.84 0.89 3500mm 31.7 27.6
[0044]
(Experiments regarding the Baffle Plates with
33
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
Longitudinal Width Having an Effect of Breaking Winds Blowing
from above)
In Fig. 2, the measurement point B corresponds to 3/4 the
height of the windbreak wall 52, and the measurement point C
corresponds to 1/2 the height of the windbreak wall 52. In
assuming that the external wind speed is 50 m/s, if greenhouses
are constructed such that their height is 3/4 (the measurement
point B) the height of the windbreak wall 52 with any of the
perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 having
longitudinal widths of 100 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm, this induces
portions at which the speed reduction ratio (see paragraph 0033)
can not reach 50%, which necessitates materials with higher
strengths, thereby making the greenhouses expensive. On the
other hand, if greenhouses are constructed such that their
height is half (the measurement point C) the height of the
windbreak wall 52, provided that the perforated portion 54 and
the baffle plates 56 have a longitudinal width of 200 mm and
are at intervals of 3000 mm or less or they have a longitudinal
width of 100 mm and are at intervals of about 1500 mm or less,
the speed reduction ratio exceeds 60% at all portions, which
enables construction of inexpensive greenhouses using
materials with relatively lower strengths. In assuming that
the external wind speed is 40 m/s, when the perforated portion
54 and the baffle plates 56 have a longitudinal width of 100
mm and are at intervals of 3000 mm or less, and when the
34
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
greenhouses have a height equal to half that of the windbreak
wall 52, the speed reduction ratio exceeds 50% at all portions,
which enables construction of inexpensive greenhouses using
materials with relatively lower strengths. Further, when the
greenhouses have a height equal to 3/4 that of the windbreak
wall 52, provided that the baffle plates have a longitudinal
width of 200 mm and are at intervals of 1500 mm or less, it is
possible to construct inexpensive greenhouses.
[0045]
In assuming that the external wind speed is 50 m/s, if
greenhouses are constructed such that their height is 3/4 the
height of the windbreak wall 52, it is impossible to provide
sufficient advantages in constructing inexpensive greenhouses,
in conclusion. In order to overcome this, the
wind-entanglement preventing effect at the measurement
position of 50 mm, which has been described in the paragraph
0036, should be utilized. Further, referring to Table 1 and
Table 2, the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56
having the longitudinal width 200 mm had a larger speed reducing
effect than that of the perforated portion 54 and the baffle
plates 56 having the longitudinal width of 100 mm. In this
regard, when there was a smaller distance from the height
position of the measurement point B to the lower end sides of
the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56, there were
more disadvantages in speed reduction measurements and, in this
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
regard, obviously, the longitudinal width 200 mm was more
disadvantageous than the longitudinal width 100 mm. In spite
of this fact, the longitudinal width 200 mm could provide a
larger speed reducing effect. This indicates that, in general,
the perforated portion 54 and baffle plates 56 had a larger speed
reducing ability as their longitudinal width was increased. In
the case of the longitudinal width 300 mm, the height positions
of the measurement points were immediately behind the baffle
plates and, therefore, it is impossible to make comparisons
regarding this.
[0046]
Table 12 and Table 13 illustrate measured wind speed
values in a case where a perforated portion 54 with a
longitudinal width of 100 mm was installed, in order to prevent
winds from being entangled in the windbreak wall 52. Further,
Table 12 is regarding a case where two baffle plates 56 with
a longitudinal width of 300 mm were mounted with an interval
of 1500 mm interposed therebetween, and Table 13 is regarding
a case where a single baffle plate 56 with a longitudinal width
of 300 mm was mounted with an interval of 2000 mm interposed
therebetween, in order to reduce the speeds of winds being blown
thereinto due to the diffusion and spread of winds blowing
thereabove. The wind speed values in the left part of Table
12 were converted into speed reduction ratios (%) in the right
part of Table 12, and the left part of Table 13 was similarly
36
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
converted into the right part of Table 13.
[0047]
[Table 12]
Measured Wind Sneed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
50 mm 7.02 0,68 0.58 50 90.3 91.7
500mm 4.66 1.01 0.71 500mm 78.3 84.8
1000mm 3.52 1.44 0.92 1000mm 59.1 73.9
1450mm 3.19 1.35 0.78 1450mm 57.7 75.5
1550mm 2.95 0.69 0. 7 1550 76.6 6.3
2000mm 2.31 0.61 0.65 2000mm 73.6 71, 9
2500mm 2.06 0.53 0.61 2500mm 74.3 70.4
2950 m 1.74 0.46 0.58 2950 mm 73 6 66. 7
[0048]
[Table 13]
Measured Wind S Deed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
A B C B C
50mm 7.14 0.69 0.55 50mm 89.9 91.9
500mm 4.78 1.31 0.79 500mm 72.3 82.5
1000mm 3.59 1.5 0.98 1000mm 60.1 72.1
1500mm 3.36 1. 36 0.87 1450mm 61.4 74.2
1950mm 2.38 1.22 0.74 1550mm 60 74.3
2050mm 2.18 1. 11 0.67 2000mm 59.3 68.8
2500mm 1.96 0.84 0.6 2500 61.8 70.5
3000mm 1.8 0.72 0.52 2950mm 61.9 68.5
3500 1.27 0.58 0.41
[0049]
Referring to the right parts of Table 12 and Table 13,
it can be estimated that, as the interval between the baffle
plates 56 is increased and, also, the distance therefrom to the
windbreak wall 52 is increased, winds are diffused and spread
over a larger width, and, therefore, the longitudinal width of
the baffle plates 56 should be increased, in order to prevent
winds blowing from above. Regarding the right parts of Table
12 and Table 13, the measurement point B was positioned
immediately behind the lower end sides of the baffle plates 56
with the longitudinal width 300 mm, which makes it impossible
37
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
to make comparisons and considerations regarding them. By
making comparisons therebetween with respect to the measurement
point C, it is revealed that the speed reducing effect was made
larger, when the interval between the baffle plates 56 was
smaller. When the interval between the installation positions
of the baffle plates 56 was varied while the longitudinal width
of the baffle plates 56 was maintained at the same value, the
speed reducing effect was larger when the interval was smaller.
This proves that the aforementioned estimation is correct. By
calculating the speed reduction ratios from the measured values
B and C with respect to the measured value A and making
comparisons therebetween, it is possible to clarify the
difference.
[0050)
Comparisons will be made between the right part of Table
12 and the right part of Table 4 regarding the data of the case
where only the windbreak wall 52 was installed and the right
part of Table 5 regarding the data of the case where the
perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 with a
longitudinal width of 100 mm were installed at intervals of 1500
mm. Table 5 and Table 12 both exhibit, in their right parts,
larger speed reducing abilities than that exhibited in the right
part of Table 4 regarding the case where only the windbreak wall
52 was employed. By making comparisons between the right parts
of Table 5 and Table 12, it is revealed that, within the section
38
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
in the range of 50 to 1450 mm, at the measurement point B, the
conditions of the experiments regarding the right parts of Table
and Table 12 were the same and, therefore, both the data are
close to each other and are substantially equal to each other.
At a measurement position of 1550 mm, at the measurement point
B, the right part of Table 5 is regarding the baffle plates 56
with the longitudinal width 100 mm, while the right part of Table
12 is regarding the longitudinal width 300 mm. The baffle
plates 56 with the longitudinal width 300 mm could improve the
speed reduction ratio, in spite of the disadvantageous
condition that the measurement point B was immediately behind
the baffle plates 56. Within the section in the range of 2000
to 2950 mm, at the measurement point B, similarly, Table 12
regarding the baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal width 300
mm exhibits, in its right part, larger speed reduction ratios
than those exhibited in the right part of Table S. On the other
hand, in the right parts of Table 5 and Table 12, the data at
all the measurement positions in the section in the range of
50 to 2950 mm at the measurement point C are close to one another
and are substantially equal to one another.
[0051]
Comparisons will be made between the right part of Table
13 and the right part of Table 4 and data of a case where the
perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 with a
longitudinal width of 100 mm were installed at intervals of 2000
39
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
mm (not illustrated in a table) . The right part of Table 13
and the data of the case where the perforated portion 54 and
the baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal width 100 mm were
installed at intervals of 2000 mm exhibit larger speed reduction
abilities than those exhibited in the right part of Table 4.
By making comparisons between the right part of Table 13 and
the data of the case where the perforated portion 54 and the
baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal width 100 mm were
installed at intervals of 2000 mm, it is revealed that, within
the section in the range of 50 to 1950 mm, at the measurement
point B, the conditions of the experiments regarding both the
cases were the same and, therefore, both the data are close to
each other and are substantially equal to each other. By making
comparisons between the right part of Table 13 regarding the
baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal width 300 mm and the data
of the case where the baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal
width 100 mm were installed at intervals of 2000 mm, it is
revealed that, at a certain position of 2050 mm, at the
measurement point B, the baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal
width 300 mm could provide a largely-improved speed reduction
ratio in the right part of Table 13 and, within the section of
2500 to 3500 mm, at the measurement point B, similarly, the
baffle plates 56 with the longitudinal width 300 mm could
provide larger speed reduction ratios, in spite of the
disadvantageous condition that the measurement point B was
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
immediately behind the baffle plates. On the other hand, in
the right part of Table 13 and in the data of the case where
the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 with the
longitudinal width 100 mm were installed at intervals of 2000
mm, at all the measurement positions in the section in the range
of 50 to 3500 mm, at the measurement point C, both the data are
close to each other and are substantially equal to each other.
[0052]
By making comparisons between the right side of Table 12
regarding the baffle plates 56 at an interval of 1500 mm and
the right side of Table 13 regarding the baffle plate 56 at an
interval of 2000 mm, it is revealed that, in the case where the
interval between the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates
56 was 1500 mm (corresponding to distance x in Fig. 4) in the
right part of Table 12, the speed reduction ratio was 57.7%,
which corresponds to a wind speed of 21.2 m with respect to an
external wind speed of 50 m/s. On the other hand, in the case
where the interval between the perforated portion 54 and the
baffle plate 56 was 2000 mm (corresponding to the distance x
in Fig. 4) in the right part of Table 13, the speed reduction
ratio was 51.4%, which corresponds to a wind speed of 24.3 m
with respect to an external wind speed is 50 m/s. They are both
very strong winds. However, by setting the distance x from
windbreak wall 52 to the baffle plates (Fig. 4) to be slightly
smaller than 1500 mm, it is possible to reduce even the wind
41
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
speed 50 m/s to 18 to 19 m/s or less, which indicates that it
is possible to construct inexpensive greenhouses.
[0053]
Consideration will be given to the intervals between the
baffle plates 56 (corresponding to the distances x' in Fig. 4) .
Regarding the right part of Table 12, the perforated portion
54 in the windbreak wall 52 had a longitudinal width of 100 mm
and, therefore, winds were blown into the fence in amounts
smaller than those of the cases of the longitudinal widths 200
mm and 300 mm as in the right parts of Table 2, Table 3, Table
6 and Table 7. Therefore, by making comparisons the distances
x' in consideration of this fact, it can be seen that the right
part of Table 12 exhibits a largest speed reduction ability.
In the right part of Table 13 regarding the case where the
interval therebetween was 2000 mm, the amounts of winds blown
from above were added thereto due to the interval of 2000 mm
and, therefore, the results were inferior to those in the right
part of Table 12, but were slightly improved over the cases other
than the right part of Table 12.
[0054]
By making comparisons of the right sides of Tables 12 and
13 with the cases where the baffle plates 56 had a longitudinal
width of 100 mm as in the right parts of Tables 1 and 5, it is
revealed that, even though the same amount of wind was blown
into the windbreak wall 52, the baffle plates 56 with the
42
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
longitudinal width 300 mm could have an effect of breaking winds
being diffused and blown from above which was incomparably
different from that of the baffle plates 56 with the
longitudinal width 100 mm, and Tables 12 and 13 exhibit, in their
right parts, larger speed reducing abilities. These results
reveals that, by mounting the entanglement-preventing
perforated portion 54 to the windbreak wall 52 and employing
the baffle plates 56 with a larger longitudinal width than that
of the perforated portion as in the right parts of Tables 12
and 13, it is possible to improve the speed reducing ability
at the measurement point B.
[00551
By making the longitudinal width of the baffle plates 56
larger than the longitudinal width of the
entanglement-preventing perforated portion 54 in the windbreak
wall 52 as described above, it is possible to improve the speed
reduction ability. However, in view of the growth of crops,
it is not preferable to make the distance x from the windbreak
wall 52 to the baffle plates slightly smaller than 1500 mm and
to make the distances x' between the baffle plates equal to 1500
mm, since many baffle plates are placed above the cultivation
greenhouses, thereby interrupting sunlight. It is necessary
that the interval between the perforated portion and the baffle
plates and the intervals between the baffle plates are equal
to or more than 3000 mm, and, in order to reduce the internal
43
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
wind speed to 18 to 19 m/s when the external wind speed is 50
m/s, it is necessary to make the intervals between the baffle
plates equal to 4242 mm. This is because, in the case of
installing the baffle plates 56 at intervals of 3000 mm as in
Fig. 3, the intervals therebetween become 4242 mm (3000 x ,-
2) at a maximum, depending on the direction of wind.
[0056]
Consideration will be made as to whether or not it is
possible to make the speed reduction ratio equal to or more than
64% with intervals of 4242 mm between baffle plates, by
selecting the longitudinal width of the baffle plates 56 and
the intervals therebetwen. In this case, it can be estimated
that there are two paths along which external winds can intrude
into the inside of the windbreak wall. One of them is a path
along which they intrude in such a way as to entangle the upper
end portion of the windbreak wall. This has been already
resolved in the aforementioned "Regarding Effective Intervals
between the Baffle Plates". The second one of them is a path
along which winds blowing thereabove can diffuse and spread into
the inside of the fence to blow thereinto, as illustrated in
Fig. 4. In the right part of Table 12, when the interval between
the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates 56 was 1500 mm,
within the section in the range of 1550 to 2950, at the
measurement point B, the wind speed corresponded to 13.2 m/s
with respect to an external wind speed of 50 m/s. If the
44
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
interval between the perforated portion 54 and the baffle plates
56 is set to 2000 mm as in the right part of Table 13, winds
blow thereinto at 18.6 m/s when the external wind speed is 50
m/s, within the section in the range of 2050 to 3500, at the
measurement point B. Accordingly, it has been revealed that,
in actual, the intervals x' (Fig. 4) can be made equal to about
1500 mm, although it is necessary that the interval x (Fig. 4)
be slightly smaller than 1500 mm.
[0057]
Experiments should be conducted for determining the value
[mm] of the longitudinal width of the baffle plates 56 necessary
for making the speed reduction ratio equal to or more than 64%,
in the case where the intervals x' are 4242 mm. At the same
time, since the measurement point B was positioned immediately
behind the lower end sides of the baffle plates, the measurement
point B should be changed to be below the upper end of the
windbreak wall 52 by 450 mm. Next, regarding the interval x,
if this interval is 1500 mm, windstorms at 21.2 m/s are blown
thereinto when the external wind speed is 50 m/s and, if the
interval is 2000 mm, this induces windstorms at 24.3 m/s. There
is also a need for experiments for means for increasing the speed
reduction ratio to 64% or more, in this case. As such means,
it is possible to estimate four means as follows.
1. The height of the greenhouses to be constructed
inside the windbreak wall 52 is made smaller.
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
2. In the case where the interval between the
windbreak wall and only the baffle plate 56 closest to the
windbreak wall 52 is made smaller than 1500 mm, the intervals
between the baffle plates are set to be an appropriate interval.
3. The longitudinal width of the perforated portion
54 formed in the windbreak wall 52 is made smaller than 100 mm.
4. The perforation ratio in the baffle plates 56 is
made smaller, in order to alleviate winds blowing therethrough.
[0058]
(Appropriate Intervals as the Intervals x and x' in Fig.
4 when the perforated Portion 54 has a Longitudinal Width of
100 mm)
When the longitudinal width of the perforated portion 54
in the windbreak wall 52 was set to 100 mm, it was determined
whether or not it is proper to set the interval x in Fig. 4 to
1200 mm. Further, when the longitudinal width of the baffle
plates 56 (corresponding to distance y in Fig. 4) was varied
among 300 mm, 400 mm and 500 mm, an appropriate value of the
intervals x' in Fig. 4 was determined. In this case, when the
distance y was 300 mm and 400 mm, the measurement point B was
changed to be below the upper end of the windbreak wall 52 by
450 mm, and the measurement point B will be designated as "B 111
in tables. When the distance y was 500 mm, measurements were
performed only at the measurement point C.
[0059]
46
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
Tables 14 to 16 illustrate, in their right parts, the
results of measurements for wind speeds, in the case where the
longitudinal width of the perforated portion 54 was set to 100
mm and, also, the interval x was set to 1200 mm and, in this
case, the longitudinal width of the baffle plates 56 (the
perforated iron plates) was varied among 300 mm (Table 14), 400
mm (right part of Table 15) and 500 mm (right part of Table 16) .
Regarding the right parts of Tables 14 and 15, the measurement
point B was at 450 mm from the upper end side of the windbreak
wall 52, while no measurements at the measurement point B were
conducted regarding the right part of Table 16. The wind speed
values in the left part of Table 14 were converted into speed
reduction ratios ( s) in the right part of Table 14, and the left
part of Table 15 was similarly converted into the right part
of Table 15. Further, the left part of Table 16 was converted
into the right part of Table 16.
[0060]
[Table 14]
Measured Wind Speed Value (m/s) Spee Reduction Ratio 9
' C B' C
50m 7.14 0.66 0.61 50mm 90.8 91.5
500mm 4.72 0.82 0.73 500 m 82.6 84.5
1150mm 3.61 1,09 0.93 1150mm 69.8 742
1250mm 3.52 1.01 0.88 1250mm 71.3 75
1500mm 3.28 0.96 0.84 150 mm 70.7 74.4
2000mm 2.2 0.86 0.79 2000mm 60.9 64.1
2500mm 1.96 0.81 074 2500mm 58.7 62.2
3000MM 1.77 0.71 0.65 3000m 59 63.3
3500 mm 1.39 0.86 0.71 500 8 48.9
~4000rnrn 1.19 77 0.68 4000mm 5 42.9
47
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0061]
[Table 151
Measured Wind S eed Value (m/s) Soeed Reduction do %
A B' C B' C
50mm 7.22 0.68 0.6 50mm 90. 91.7
500mm 4.8 0.85 0.71 500 mm 82.3 85.2
1150mm 3.64 1.07 0.95 11 0 70.6 73.9
1250mm 3.51 0.94 0.85 1250mm 732 75.8
1500mm 3.3 0.84 0.79 1500mm 74.5 76.1
2000mm 2.19 0.75 0.72 2000mm 67
2500mm 1.99 0.69 0.65 2500mm 65.3 67.
3000mm 1.83 0.62 0.6 3000mm 66.1 67.2
3500mm 1.4 0.89 067 3500 mm 36.4 52.
4000m m 122 0.8 0 5 4000mm 34.4 46.7
[0062]
[Table 16]
Measured Wind Speed Value (m/s) -Speed Reduction Ratio N)
A B'
50mm 7.18 0.57 50mm 92.1
500mm 4.76 0.69 500mm 85.5
1150mm 3.59 0.92 1150mm 74.4
1250mm 3.54 0.81 1250mm 771
1500mm 3.33 0.73 1500mm 78.1
2000mm 2.24 0.69 2000mm 69.2
2500mm 2.01 0.61 2500mm 69.7
3000mm 1.86 0.56 3000mm 69.9
3500mm 1.42 0.7 3500mm 50.7
4000mm 124 0.64 4000m 48A
[0063]
As can be clearly seen from the right part of Table 12,
when the interval x was 1500 mm, at the measurement point B,
at a measurement position of 1450 mm, the wind speed
corresponded to a strong wind at 21.15 m/s with respect to an
external wind speed of 50 m/s. On the other hand, as in the
right part of Table 14, when the interval x was set to 1200 mm,
at the measurement point B, at a measurement position of 1150
mm, the wind speed corresponded to 15.1 m/s. Tables 14 to 16
reveal, at their right parts, that there was provided the speed
reducing effect up to a measurement position of 3000 mm, but
48
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
this effect was abruptly decreased at larger distances
therethan, and the speed reduction effect was increased with
increasing longitudinal width of the baffle plates 56 (the
perforated iron plates) . Further, it was revealed that winds
were blown from above at the portions at 1800 to 2300 mm from
the baffle plates, and this could not be prevented even through
the longitudinal width was increased. Further, regarding the
right parts of Tables 14 and 15, the measurement point B was
set to be below the upper end by 450 mm, and the interval x was
set to 1200 mm, while regarding the right parts of Tables 12
and 13, the measurement point B was set to be below the upper
end by 284.9 mm, and the interval x in Fig. 4 was set to 1500
mm and 2000 mm for performing the determinations. This makes
it impossible to make comparisons therebetween simply.
[0064]
In conclusion, it has been revealed that, in the case of
the perforated baffle plates, it is appropriate to set the
interval x in Fig. 4 to 1200 mm. Further, up to a measurement
position of 3000 mm, namely up to a distance of 1800 mm from
the baffle plates, there can be provided the speed reduction
effect, and this effect is abruptly reduced at a measurement
position of 3500 mm, regardless of the longitudinal width of
the baffle plates. In this regard, it is not appropriate to
set the intervals x' to within the range of 1800 to 2300 mm.
This is because, in the right part of Table 14, at a measurement
49
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
position of 3000 mm, at the measurement point B, strong winds
at 20.05 m/s are blown thereinto, when the external wind speed
is 50 m/s.
[0065]
It has been revealed that, at distances of 1800 to 2300
mm from the baffle plates, the speed reduction effect is
significantly reduced, regardless of the longitudinal width of
the baffle plates.
[0066]
On the other hand, Tables 14 to 16 reveal, at their right
parts, that the speed reduction effect is increased with
increasing longitudinal width of the perforated baffle plates.
Based on the right parts of Tables 14 to 16, in the case of
reducing the internal wind speed to more than 10 m/s meters when
the external wind speed is 50 m/s, this case corresponds to 14.65
m/s at the measurement point B at a measurement position of 1500
mm in the case of the baffle plates with the longitudinal width
300 mm, further corresponds to 16.95 m/s at a measurement
position of 3000 mm in the case of the longitudinal width 400
mm, and further corresponds to 15.05 m/s at the measurement
point C a measurement position of 3000 mm in the case of the
longitudinal width 500 mm. As a result, the intervals x' in
Fig. 4 should be 300 mm (1500-1200 = 300) in the case of the
baffle plates with the longitudinal width 300 mm and should be
1800 mm (3000-1200 = 1800) in the case of the baffle plates with
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
the longitudinal widths 400 mm and 500 mm. However, if the
longitudinal width of the baffle plates is set to 500 mm, this
will increase the area which interrupts sunlight above the
greenhouses, thereby inducing a disadvantage in growing plants.
This reveals that an appropriate longitudinal width of the
baffle plates is 400 mm.
[0067]
From the results of the experiments in the right parts
of Tables 14 to 16, it is possible to provide answers to the
aforementioned method 2 (Paragraph 0057) . Specifically, when
the interval between the windbreak wall and the baffle plates
was set to 1200 mm, the wind speed corresponded to an internal
wind speed of 15.1 m/s with respect to an external wind speed
of 50 m/s, at the measurement point B at 1150 mm from the
windbreak wall. This reveals that an appropriate interval from
the windbreak wall is 1200 mm. Further, regarding the intervals
between the baffle plates, when the external wind speed is 50
m/s, in the case of a longitudinal width of 300 mm, windstorms
at 30.95 m/s occur, at the measurement point B, at 2300 mm from
the baffle plates, further in the case of a longitudinal width
of 400 mm, the wind speed corresponds to 31.8 m/s at the
measurement point B, and in the case of a longitudinal width
of 500 mm, the wind speed corresponds to 24.85 m/s at the
measurement point C, both of which are windstorms. If the
longitudinal width of the baffle plates is increased to infinity,
51
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
the speed reduction ratio can be increased, but sunlight is
interrupted, which is undesirable in growing plants, and,
further, the space for the greenhouses to be constructed inside
is reduced. Accordingly, it is impossible to increase their
longitudinal width to infinity. In this regard, it is desired
that the intervals x' in Fig. 4 are set to 1800 mm in the case
of the baffle plates with the longitudinal width 400 mm.
However, in the case where they are 1800 mm, the diagonal lines
have a length of 2545.2 mm and, in consideration of this fact,
an appropriate value thereof is 1272.98 mm.
[0068]
(Whether or Not It is Appropriate to Set the Longitudinal
Width of the perforated Portion to 100 mm or Less)
Tables 17 to 21 which will be illustrated hereinafter
illustrate, at their right parts, the results of measurements
for wind speeds, when the longitudinal width of the perforated
portion 54 in the windbreak wall was varied among 100, 80, 50,
30 and 10 mm. By making comparisons among the right parts of
Tables 17 to 21, it is revealed that the longitudinal width 100
mm could offer a largest speed reduction effect. Regarding the
longitudinal widths 100 mm and 200 mm, comparisons can be made
between the right parts of Tables 1 and 2 only with respect to
the section up to a measurement position of 950 mm, and these
results reveal that the longitudinal width 100 mm could exhibit
a larger speed reduction effect than 200 mm. By making
52
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
comparisons with respect to the measurement point C, regarding
the right parts of Tables 1 to 3, within the section up to a
measurement position of 1000 mm, the speed reduction effect was
decreased with increasing longitudinal width, in the order of
100 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm. In conclusion, when the perforated
portion 54 has a longitudinal width of about 100 mm, it is
possible to offer a largest speed reduction effect. The wind
speed values in the left parts of Tables 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21
were converted into speed reduction ratios (%) in the right
parts of Tables 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, respectively.
[0069]
The Longitudinal Width of the Perforated Portion: 100 mm
[Table 17]
Measured Wind Speed Value (m/s) Speed Reduction Ratio
A B C B C
50mm 7.15 0.76 0.63 50mm 89.4 91.2
500mm 4.73 1.04 0.73 500mm 78.0 84.6
1000mm 3.63 1.34 0.98 1000mm 63.1 73.0
1500mm 3.31 1.28 0.90 1500mm 61.3 72.8
2000mm 2.18 1.21 0.81 2000mm 44.5 62.8
2500mm 1.94 1.09 0.69 2500mm 43.8 64.4
[0070]
The Longitudinal Width of the Perforated Portion: 80 mm
[Table 18]
Measured Wind S eed Value m s Speed Reduction Ratio
A B C B C
50mm 7. 18 0.85 0.75 50mm 88.1 89.6
500mm 4.72 1.07 0.84 500mm 77.3 82.2
1000mm 3.66 1.40 1. 19 1000mm 61.7 67.5
1500mm 3.29 1.34 1.08 1500mm 59.3 67.2
2000mm 2.21 1.25 0.98 2000mm 43.4 55.7
2500mm 1.96 1.13 0.84 2500mm 42.3 57.1
53
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0071]
The Longitudinal Width of the Perforated Portion: 50 mm
[Table 19]
Measured Wind Speed Value (m/s) Seed Reduction Ratio 0
B C B C
50mm M2.1 0.95 0,87 50mm 86.6 87.8
500mm 1. 13 0.93 500 mm 76.3 80. 5
1000mm 1.49 1,31 1000 mm 59.5 64.4
1500mm 1.42 1.19 1500 mm 57.5 64.4
2000mm 1.28 1. 11 2000 mm 41.6 49.3
2500 mm 1.99 1.17 0.97 2500 mm 41.2 51.3
[0072]
The Longitudinal width of the Perforated Portion: 30 mm
[Table 20]
Measure Wind S eed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
B C B C
50mm 7. 17 1.25 0.94 50 mm 82.6 86.9
500mm 4.80 1.21 1.05 500 mm 74.8 78.1
1000mm 61 1.55 1.49 1000 mm 57.1 58.7
1500mm 3.36 1.46 1.32 1500 mm 56.5 60.7
2000mm 2.16 1.34 1,25 2000mm 38.0 42.1
2500mm 1.93 1.21 1.04 2500 mm 37.3 46.1
[0073]
The Longitudinal Width of the Perforated Portion: 10 mm
[Table 211
Measured Wind S e d Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
B B C
50mm 7.20 1.57 1.03 50 mm 78.2 85.7
500mm 4.71 1.29 1. 14 500 mm 72.6 75,8
1000mm 3.60 1.62 54 1000 mm 55.0 57.2
1500mm 3 29 1.51 1.41 1500 mm 54.1 57.1
2000mm 2. 11 1.44 . 33 2000 mm 31.8 37,0
2500mm 1.89 1.24 1.12 2500mm 34.4 40 7
[0074]
(Whether or Not It is Appropriate to Reduce the
Perforation Ratio in the Baffle Plates 56 for Alleviating Winds
Blowing therethrough)
54
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
79563-5
Measurements for average wind speed values (m/s) and
average passed wind speed ratios (%) were conducted using baffle
plates having surfaces illustrated in Figs. 6, 7, 8 and 9 and
having different perforation ratios. The average wind speed
values are values resulted from simply averaging wind speeds
measured at a downwind position at 200 mm from the perforated
baffle plates. The calculations were conducted as follows: the
average passed wind speed ratio (%) = { (the average wind speed
value) / (the speed value of wind immediately before passing
through the perforated baffle plate in the upwind side) } x 100.
Table 25 illustrates the results. Further, measurements of wind
speeds were conducted with an experiment device illustrated in
Fig. 5, using the baffle plates with the different perforation
ratios. Table 22 illustrates the results of the baffle plate
in Fig. 7 (with a perforation ratio of 27.27%), Table 23
illustrates the results of the baffle plate in Fig. 8 (with a
perforation ratio of 18.18%), and Table 24 illustrates the
results of the baffle plate in Fig. 9 (with a perforation ratio
of 14.140). From these results of measurements, the speed
reduction ratios were calculated, and the internal wind speeds
in the case of a wind speed of 50 m/s outside the windbreak wall
were calculated. Tab le 25 illustrates the results. From these
experiments, it is possible to determine whether or not it is
appropriate to set the interval x in Fig. 4 to 1200 mm even when
the perforation ratio, the hole diameter, the hole arrangement
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
and the average wind speed ratio are varied, while it was
appropriate to set the interval x in Fig. 4 to 1200 mm when using
a baffle plate as a perforated iron plate in Fig. 6 (with a
perforation ratio of 40.28%).
[0075]
[Table 22]
Measured Wind S Deed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
A B' C B' C
50mm 7.21 0.62 0 54 50m 91.4 92,5
500mm 4.79 0.76 0,69 500mm 84.1 85,6
1150mm 3.58 0.92 0.86 1150mm 74.3 76.0
1250mm 3.5 0.90 0.82 1250mm 74.5 76.8
1500mm 3.24 0.83 0.78 1500mm 74.4 75.9
2000mm 2.21 0.80 0.74 2000mm 63.8 66.5
2500mm 2.02 0.76 0.68 2500mm 62.4 66.3
3000mm 1.79 0.64 0.59 3000mm 64.2 67.0
3500mm 1. 37 0.84 0.69 mm 38.7 49.6
4000mm 1.23 0.75 0.63 4000mm 39.0 48.8
[0076]
[Table 23]
Measured Wind Sneed Value m s See Reducti on Ratio
A B' C
50mm 7.19 0.81 0.70 50mm 88.7 90.3
500mm 4.7 0.91 0.84 500mm 80.9 82.4
1150mm 3.65 1.22 1.08 1150mm 66.6 70.4
1250mm 3.52 1.14 1.02 1250mm 67. 71.0
1500mm 3.28 1.03 0.96 1500mm 68.6 70.7
2000mm 2.22 0.94 0.92 2000mm 57.7 58.6
2500mm 2.03 0.88 0.82 2500mm 56.7 59,6
3000mm 1.81 0.83 0 76 3000mm 54.1 58
3500mm 1.40 0.90 0.70 3500mm 35.7 50'0
4000mm 1.19 0.72 0.60 4000mm 39.5 49.6
[0077]
[Table 24]
Measured Wind Sneed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
A B' C B' C
50mm 7. 16 0.90 0.80 50mm 87.4 88.8
500mm 4.73 1.04 0.89 500mm 78.0 81.
1150mm 3.62 1,36 1,24 1150mm 62.4 65,7
1250mm 3.50 1.30 1.19 1250mm 62.9 66.0
1500m 3.27 1.22 1.11 1500mm 62.7 66.1
2000mm 2.19 1. 13 1.04 2000mm 48.4 52.5
2500mm 1.98 1.02 0.99 2500mm 48.5 50.0
3000mm 1.84 0.97 0.88 3000mm 47.3 52,2
3500mm 1. 38 0.89 0.71 3500mm 35.5 48.6
4000mm 1. 18 0,74 0.61 4000mm 37.3 48.3
56
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0078]
The following Table 25 illustrates speed reduction ratios
at a measurement position of 1150 mm and internal wind speeds
when there was a windstorm at 50 m/s outside, in association
with the average wind speed values resulted from the respective
baffle plates. The perforation ratios were calculated by
performing actual measurements on the respective baffle plates.
The internal wind speeds were calculated from the respective
speed reduction ratios. The wind speed values in the left part
of Table 22 were converted into speed reduction ratios (%) in
the right part of Table 22, and the wind speed values in the
left part of Table 23 were converted into speed reduction ratios
(%) in the right part of Table 23. Further, the left part of
Table 24 was similarly converted into the right part of Table
24. Since there is no data measured at positions of 1300 mm
or more, it is unclear whether or not the baffle plates were
installed at an appropriate position, but it can be seen that
at least the measurement position 1150 mm was effective. On
the other hand, regarding the problem as to whether the speed
reduction ratio can be improved by reducing the perforation
ratio for alleviating winds blowing therethrough, Table 25
shows that the speed reduction ratio was increased with
increasing average wind speed value. This fact will be
described later, and a local maximum value exists. This makes
it impossible to make the determination only from Table 25.
57
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0079]
[Table 25]
See Table 22 See Table 14 See Table 23 See Table 24
L'ertorated wood Yerlorated Yertorated Yertorated
plate Iron Plate wood plate wood plate
(veneer or plywood) (veneer or plywood) (veneer or plywood)
Perforation Ratio
(%) 27. 27% 40.28% 18. 18% 14.14%
Average Wind Speed
value (m/s) 2.55 2.34 2. 33 2.03
Average Passed Wind
Speed Ratio ( s) 27. 10 24.95 24.89 21.66
Speed Reduction
Ratio (%) 74. 30% 69.80% 66.60% 62.40%
[00 Internal Wind speed
(m/s) 12. 85m/ s 15. lm/ s 16. 7m/ s 18.8m/ s
80]
Next, it is determined whether or not winds were blown
from above at a measurement position of 2300 mm, regarding the
perforated baffle plates. Referring to Tables 22 to 24, there
was abruptly change in difference of speed reduction ratio
between the measurement positions 3000 mm and 3500 mm. The
reason thereof is as follows. The wind speed was mildly
increased up to the measurement position 3000 mm. However, it
is indicated that an external windstorm was abruptly diffused
and blown into the inside of the windbreak wall 52 at the
measurement position 3500 mm. In other words, it is revealed
that, in the intervals x' in Fig. 4, winds were blown from above
around a position at 2300 mm from the baffle plate in the upwind
side. In the case of the right part of Table 4 regarding the
case where only the windbreak wall was used, winds were blown
at a measurement position of 2000 mm.
58
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[00811
As to whether or not the speed reduction ratio changes
with the change of the average wind speed value, it has been
revealed that it changes therewith as exhibited in the
aforementioned Table 25. This change occurs such that the speed
reduction ratio increases with increasing average wind speed
value. However, if the average wind speed value is unlimitedly
increased, this will induce a state similar to that in the case
where no baffle plates exist. That is, if the average wind speed
value is increased, it becomes closer to the value in Table 4,
while if the average wind speed value is decreased, it becomes
closer to the value in the case of the baffle plate with no
perforation. This reveals that there is a maximum average wind
speed value which maximizes the speed reduction ratio.
Hereinafter, there will be described the reason why the average
wind speed value is cited as a criterion for limitation of
numerical values, instead of citing the perforation ratio as
a criterion therefor. Referring to Table 25, the perforated
iron plate had a largest perforation ratio value of 40.28%.
However, the perforated wood plate with a perforation ratio of
27.27% could offer a larger speed reduction ratio (%) . Thus,
it has been revealed that the speed reduction ratio (%) is not
proportional to the perforation ratio. Next, there will be
described the problem of the citation of the average wind speed
value as the criterion. The measurements in the paragraphs 0017
59
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
and 0074 are different from each other, only in that they result
in values measured at a downwind position at 50 mm from the
perforated baffle plates and values measured at a downwind
position at 200 mm therefrom, respectively. The measurements
conducted under these measurement conditions resulted in 4.80
m/s at 50 mm and 2.34 m/s at 200 mm. For the aforementioned
reason, it is important to satisfy the condition about the
distance [mm] from the perforated baffle plates in the downwind
side. Accordingly, in the present specification and the claims,
the average wind speed values indicate values measured at a
position at a distance of 200 mm from the perforated baffle
plates in the downwind side.
[0082]
In conclusion, with respect to the interval x and the
intervals x' in Fig. 4, the speed reduction effect is increased
with increasing average wind speed value realized by the baffle
plates, from 2.33 m/s to 2.55 m/s through 2.34 m/s. This reveals
that it is appropriate to set the interval x in Fig. 4 to 1200
mm, and the average wind speed value affects the speed reduction
effect, regardless of the perforation ratio, the hole diameter,
the hole arrangement in the baffle plates and the like. It has
been revealed that there is a maximum average wind speed value
which maximizes the speed reduction value. As data which
identifies this maximum value, Table 25 is effective, but is
insufficient. In order to identify the maximum speed reduction
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
value, the data in Table 25 was supplemented. Average wind
speed values (m/s) and average passed wind speed ratios (%) were
identified according to the method described in the paragraph
0074, using baffle plates having surfaces illustrated in Figs.
24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 and having different perforation ratios,
and Table 36 illustrates the results. Further, measurements
for wind speeds were conducted with the experiment device
illustrated in Fig. 5, using these baffle plates with the
different perforation ratios. As these results, Table 31
illustrates values measured with the baffle plate in Fig. 24,
Table 32 illustrates values measured with the baffle plate in
Fig. 25, Table 33 illustrates values measured with the baffle
plate in Fig. 26, Table 34 illustrates values measured with the
baffle plate in Fig. 27, and Table 35 illustrates values
measured with the baffle plate in Fig. 28. The wind speed values
in the left parts of Tables 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 were converted
into speed reduction ratios (%) in the right parts of Tables
31, 32, 33, 34 and 35, respectively. From these results of
measurements, the speed reduction ratios were calculated, and
the internal wind speeds in the case of a wind speed of 50 m/s
outside the wind break wall were calculated. Table 36
illustrates the results. Referring to Tables 25 and 36, the
speed reduction ratio (74.3%) had a maximum value when the
average wind speed value was 2.55 m/s.
61
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0083]
Further, at the portion at 450 to 570 mm from the upper
end of the windbreak wall, winds are blown thereinto from above
at upwind portions at about 2300 mm from the baffle plate,
regardless of the perforation ratio, the hole diameter in the
baffle plates, the length of the longitudinal width and the
average wind speed value, with reference to Tables 22 to 24.
However, referring to Tables 14 to 16, it is appropriate that
the intervals x' in Fig. 4 are 1800 mm in the case where the
baffle plates has a longitudinal width of 400 mm, based on the
aforementioned results of experiments.
[0084]
In summarizing the aforementioned conclusions, the
condition for realizing an optimum speed reduction effect is
that the average wind speed value should be 2.55 m/s (see Table
25), in the case where the interval x in Fig. 4 is 1200 mm and
the intervals x' are 1800 mm and, further, the perforated
portion 54 has a longitudinal width of 100 mm. Even with the
intervals x' , when the average wind speed value is 2.55 m/s (see
Tables 25 and 36), the larger the longitudinal width of the
baffle plates, the better. However, in consideration of
sunlight for growing plants, the larger the longitudinal width
of the baffle plates, the more disadvantageous. Even when the
baffle plates have a longitudinal width of 100 mm, there is
provided a speed reduction effect, but the intervals between
62
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
the baffle plates and the interval between them and the
windbreak wall should be decreased with decreasing longitudinal
width. Accordingly, it is necessary only to appropriately and
selectively determine the longitudinal width of the baffle
plates. Hereinafter, experiments will be conducted in
assuming that an appropriate longitudinal width is 400 mm.
[0085]
Regarding the optical environment in the wall inside
portion surrounded by the windbreak wall under the
aforementioned conditions, the baffle plates with a
longitudinal width of 400 mm are mounted at intervals of 1800,
which interrupts sunlight, thereby resulting in poor sunshine.
In order to increase the sunshine, the placement of the baffle
plates in a plane was changed, further, the longitudinal width
of the baffle plates was set to 300 mm as illustrated in Fig.
and Fig. 11, the baffle plates including the windbreak wall
were installed in a rectangular plane at intervals of 3000 mm,
additional baffle plates 60 and 60 were mounted along their
diagonal lines, and six measurement positions were set for a
measurement point D in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. Further, since the
speed reduction ability was insufficient in the structure based
on the aforementioned respective conclusions, measurements
were conducted at a position below the upper end portion of the
windbreak wall by 1.5 m (measurement point E).
63
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0086]
Table 26 which will be illustrated hereinafter
illustrates wind speeds measured at the measurement points D
and E in Fig. 10, and Table 27 which will be illustrated
hereinafter illustrates wind speeds measured at the measurement
points D and E in Fig. 11, and the speed reduction ratios at
the measurement points D and E were calculated from these values.
Referring to the right parts of Tables 26 and 27, even at the
portion which exhibited a smallest speed reduction effect, out
of all the 24 measurement points for the measurement points D
and E, it is possible to reduce the speed of a windstorm at a
wind speed of 50 m/s to 11.45 m/s, and at the measurement point
E, the wind speed corresponds to 9.25 m/s. As described above,
it has been revealed that it is possible to provide a sufficient
effect when the interval of the baffle plates is 3000 mm. Thus,
in order to further increase the sunshine, they were installed
at intervals of 4000 mm similarly to in Fig. 10, and additional
baffle plates were installed along their diagonal lines. The
wind speed values in the left part of Table 26 were converted
into speed reduction ratios (%) in the right part of Table 26,
and the wind speed values in the left part of Table 27 were
converted into speed reduction ratios (%) in the right part of
Table 27.
64
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0087]
[Table 261
Measured Wind Sneed Value s Seed Reduction Ratio
A D E D E
Below by 450 mm Below by 1500 mm
50mm 7.15 0.61 0.28 50mm 96.1
500 mm 4.79 0.73 0.24 500 84.8 95
1000 MM 3.62 0.83 0.31 1000mm 77.1 91.4
1500 mm 3. 36 0.75 0.49 1500mm 77 7 85.4
2000 mm 2.22 0.59 0.41 2000mm 73.4 81.5
2500 mm 1.98 0.49 0.36 2500mm 75.3 81.8
[0088]
[Table 27]
Measured Wind S e d Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio (%)
A D E E
Below by 450 Below by 1500mm
50 7. 0.56 0.27 50mm 92.2 96.2
500 4. 0.48 0.21 00m 90.0 95,6
[ 0 0 8 1000 mm 3. 64 0. 52 0. 17 1000 85.7 95. 3
1500 mm 3. 38 0.45 0.28 1500 86,7 91. 7
2000mm 80.9 89.3
9 1 2000mm 2,25 0.43 0.24
40 0 8 2500mm 80.1 91.
2500mm 2.01 0.
Table 28 which will be illustrated hereinafter
illustrates wind speeds measured at the measurement points D
and E in the case of intervals of 4000 mm similarly to in Fig.
10, Table 29 which will be illustrated hereinafter illustrates
wind speeds measured at the measurement points D and E in the
case of intervals of 4000 mm similarly to in Fig. 11, and, from
these values, the speed reduction ratios at the measurement
points D and E were calculated. Referring to Tables 28 and 29,
at the portion which exhibited a smallest speed reduction effect,
out of all the 16 measurement points for the measurement point
E, it is possible to change windstorms at a wind speed of 50
m/s to 13.15 m/s, and a wind speed corresponds to 10.52 m/s with
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
respect to a wind speed of 40 m/s. This wind speed does not
correspond to a windstorm, but is not a small wind speed, and
13.15 m/s belongs to a group of strong winds. Accordingly, in
the case of employing a structure as illustrated in Fig. 10 and
Fig. 11 using perforated baffle plates as in Fig. 7, assuming
that windstorms to be broken is at 50 m/s, there is a limit on
the intervals between the baffle plates at about 4000 mm, in
the case where there is a height difference of 1.5 m between
the windbreak wall and the greenhouses constructed inside,
regarding the intervals between the baffle plates expect the
additional baffle plates 60 installed along the diagonal lines,
and regarding the interval between the baffle plates and the
windbreak wall. The wind speed values in the left part of Table
28 were converted into speed reduction ratios (%) in the right
part of Table 28, and the wind speed values in the left part
of Table 29 was converted into speed reduction ratios (%) in
the right part of Table 29.
[0090]
[Table 28]
Measured Wind S Deed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
A D E Below by 450 mm Below by 1500mm
50mm 7. 14 0.63 0.27 50mm 91.2 96.2
500mm 4.76 0.75 0.22 500mm 84.2 95.4
1000mm 3.63 0.87 0.35 1000mm 76.0 90.4
1500mm 3.31 0.73 0.47 1500mm 77.9 85.8
2000mm 2.20 0.61 0.42 2000mm 72.3 80.9
2500mm 1.97 0.49 0.35 2500mm 75.1 82.2
3000mm 1.78 0.37 0.29 3000mm 79.2 83.7
3500mm 1.37 0.46 0.36 3500mm 66.4 73.7
66
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0091]
[Table 29]
Measured Wind S eed Value m s Seed Reduction Ratio
A D E Below by 450 mm Below by 1500mm
50mm 7. 16 0.57 0.28 50mm 92.0 96. 1
500mm 4. 79 0.54 0. 22 500mm 88. 7 95.4
1000mm 3. 61 0.68 0. 19 1000mm 81.2 94.7
1500mm 3. 34 0.63 0.46 1500mm 81. 1 86.2
2000mm 2. 23 0. 58 0.40 2000mm 74. 0 82. 1
2500m m 1.99 0. 54 0. 36 2500mm 72.9 81.9
3000mm 1.81 0.47 0.32 3000mm 74.0 82.3
3500mm 1. 35 0.42 0.27 3500mm 68.9 80.0
[0092]
Based on the wind-speed data in Tables 26 to 29, it is
revealed that it is possible to increase the interval between
the windbreak wall and the baffle plates and the intervals
between the baffle plates, as the height of the inside
greenhouses surrounded by the windbreak wall is made smaller
than that of the windbreak wall. In order to confirm this
tendency, measurement points were set at positions below the
upper end portion of the windbreak wall by 200 mm, 400 mm, 600
mm and 800 mm, as illustrated in Fig. 12, and the speed reduction
ratios (Table 30) were calculated for the measurement points
F, G, H and I with respect to the measurement point A in Table
30.
[0093]
Referring to the data of the speed reduction ratios in
Table 30, there is clearly exhibited a tendency similar to the
aforementioned conclusions (see the paragraph 0064) . All the
values measured at the positions below the upper end of the
67
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
windbreak wall by 200 mm, 400 mm, 600 mm and 800 mm exhibit
reduction of the speed reduction effect, in the range of 1500
mm to 2000 mm. The aforementioned conclusion describes the
phenomenon that the speed reduction effect decreases at
portions at distances of 1800 to 2300 mm from the baffle plates.
The conclusion about the perforated portion in the windbreak
wall describes the phenomenon that the speed reduction effect
decreases at portions at distances of 1500 to 2000 mm from the
perforated portion 54, unlike that about the baffle plates.
This phenomenon appears in all the experiment data resulted from
varying the longitudinal width of the perforated portion 54
among 100 mm, 200 mm, 300 mm, 80 mm, 50 mm, 30 mm and 10 mm.
This speed reduction effect is increased at positions closer
to the upper end of the windbreak wall and is increased at
positions farther from the upper end of the windbreak wall in
the downward direction.
[0094]
[Table 30]
S eed Reduction Ratio
F G H I
Below b 200 mm Below by 400mm Below by 600 mm Below by 800mm
50 84.9 90. 1 91.9 94.0
500mm 74. 1 80.0 85.7 89. 1
1000 62.0 66.7 76. 0 79. 5
1500 mm 61. 1 66.0 75.6 80.7
2000mm 45.7 54.3 66.5 73. 8
2500mm 46. 2 54.3 69.0 76. 1
3000mm 48. 0 54.2 70. 4 78.8
68
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0095]
[Table 311
S Deed Reduction Ratio 0
Measured Wind Sneed Value m s B' C
A Below by 450 mm Below by 569.8mm
50mm 7. 19 0.71 0.66 50mm 90.1 90.8
500mm .7 0.83 0.72 500mm 82.4 84.7
1150mm 3 57 1.10 1.02 1150mm 69,2 71.4
1250mm 3.52 1.05 0.96 1250mm 70.2 72. 7
1500mm 3,26 0.98 0.89 1500 mm 69.9 72.7
2000m m 2.22 90 0.82 2000 mm 59,5 63.
2 0 1.97 0.84 0.77 2500mm 57.4 60.9
3000min 1.75 0.73 0.66 3000mm 58.3 62.3
3 0 1 37 0.87 0.72 3500 mm 36.5 47.4
4000 0.76 1 0.68 4000 mm 35.6 42.4
[0096]
[Table 32]
S eed Reduction Ratio
M su ed Wind Sneed Value s B' C
Below b 50 m Below 6 569.8mm
50 mm 7. 17 0.78 0.71 50mm 89.1 90. 1
500mul 4.75 0.89 0.80 500mm 81.3 83.2
1150mm 3.59 1.16 1. 11 1 50 m 67.7 69,1
1250m m 3.53 1.12 1.04 1250 mm 68.3 70.5
1 00 3.33 1.06 0.95 1500mm 68.2 71.5
2000m m 2. 0.98 0.90 2000 m m 55.0 58. 7
2500 mm 1.96 0.92 0.84 2500 mm 53.1 57.1
3000 mm 1. 77 0.82 0,79 3000 53.7 55.4
3500 m 1. 3 0.89 0.83 3500 mm 34.6 39,0
4000mm 1. 19
0. 78 0.70 4000m m 34.5 41. 2
[0097]
[Table 331 S ed Reduction Ratio
B' C
as ed Wind Sneed Value
A B' C below 4 0 mm Below by 569.8mm
50mm 7.20 0.79 0.73 50mm 89, 0 89.9
500mm 4. .90 0.81 500mm 81.1 83.0
150m 67.4 68 5
1m .
1150 mm 3.62 1.18 1.14
1250 m 3. 54 1. 14 1 05 1250mm 67.8 70.3
1500 m 3. 1.06 0 94 1500mm 68.1 71.7
2000 mm 2,20 1.00 0.90 2000mm 54.5 59,1
2 00 2.01 0.94 0.85 2500m m 53. 2 57. 7
3 00 m 1. 76 0.82 0.78 3000 53.4 55.7
3500m 1. 35 0. 8 83 350 m 34.8 38. 5
4000 1.21 00 7 4000mm 33.9 41.3
69
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0098]
[Table 34]
Speed Reduction Ratio
Measured Wind S Deed Value m s B' C
A B' C Below by 450 mm Below by 569.8mm
50mm 7.18 0.97 0.91 50mm 86.5 87.3
500mm 4.74 1.15 1.04 500mm 75.7 78. 1
1150mm 3.60 1.43 1.36 1150mm 60.3 62.2
1250mm 3.51 1.38 1.30 1250mm 60.7 63.0
1500mm 3.29 1.33 1.24 1500mm 59.6 62.3
2000mm 2. 17 1.27 1. 18 2000 mm 41.5 45.6
2500m 1.99 1, 19 1.12 2500 mm 40.2 43.7
3000 1.78 1.10 1.08 3000mm 38.2 39.3
3500mm 1.34 0.95 0.89 00 mm 29.1 33.6
4000mm 1, 17 0.87 0 80 4000mm 25.6 31.6
[0099]
[Table 35]
Speed Reduction Ratio
Measured Wind S e d Value 'n/u) B' C
A B' C Below by 450 mm Below by 569.8mm
50mm 7. 16 1.01 0.95 50mm 85.9 86.7
500mm 4.79 1.21 1.12 500mm 74.7 76.6
1150mm 3.63 1.49 1.42 1150mm 59.0 60.9
1250mm 3.54 1.45 1.36 1250mm 59.0 61.6
1500mm 3.32 1.38 1.29 1500mm 58.4 61. 1
2000mm 2.19 1.31 1.22 2000mm 40.2 44.3
2500mm 2.03 1.24 1.15 2500mm 38.9 43.3
3000mm 1.80 1. 13 1.1 3000mm 37.2 38.3
3500 mm 1.39 0.97 0.93 3500mm 30.2 33.1
4000 .22 0.90 0,82 4000mm 26.2 32.8
[0100]
[Table 36]
See Table 35 See Table 34 See Table 33 See Table 32 See Table 31
Perforated Wood Perforated Wood Perforated Wood Perforated Wood Perforated
Wood
Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate
(Veneer or Plywood) (Veneer or Plywood) (Veneer or Plywood) (Veneer or
Plywood) (Veneer or Plywood)
Perforation Ratio (%) 54,54% 50. 25% 40. 91% 38. 90% 34.09%
Average Wind Speed 3.93 3.79 3. 19 2.99 2. 74
Value (m/s)
Average Passed Wind
Speed Ratio (%) 41.68 40.36 33.90 31.81 29.09
Speed Reduction Ratio 59. 00% 60. 30% 69. 40% 67. 70% 69. 20%
(%)
Internal Wind Speed 20. 5m/ s 19. 9m/ s 15. 3m/ s 16.2m/ s 15. 4m/ s
(m/s)
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0101]
The speed reduction ratios realized by the baffle plates
are determined by the average wind speed values of strong winds,
regardless of the shape and the diameter of the holes provided
in the baffle plates and the way of the arrangement thereof.
It has been revealed that the average wind speed value which
maximizes the speed reduction ratio falls within the range of
2.3 to 3.0 m/s and is about 2.55 m/s.
[0102]
Next, the present invention will be described based on
examples, but the present invention is not limited to the
examples. Fig. 13 is a schematic explanation view illustrating
a state where forty plastic greenhouses 80 or glass greenhouses
are surrounded by a windbreak fence 82. Fig. 14 and Fig. 15
are framing elevations of each row of poles 84, wherein the
windbreak fence 82 has a height of 3.3 mm. Referring to detailed
views in Fig. 20 and Fig. 21, there are an iron plate with a
thickness of 4.5 mm and a baffle plate 86 with a height of 130
mm (corresponding to the perforated portion) thereon, and
therefore the windbreak fence 82 has a height of 3434. 5 mm. The
baffle plate 86 with the height 130 mm is mounted to a steel
having a lipped-slot shape with sizes of 60 x 30 x 1.6 and,
therefore, the slot-shaped steel closes perforations in the
baffle plate, at its portion having the size 30 mm. Accordingly,
the effective longitudinal width of the baffle plate 86 is 100
71
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
mm.
[0103]
As illustrated in Fig. 13, a plurality of greenhouses 80
are constructed within the windbreak fence 82, and the
greenhouses have a height of 2 mm, although not illustrated.
Accordingly, there is an interval of 1434.5 mm from the top
portions of the greenhouses 80 to the top portion of the
windbreak fence 82. As illustrated in Fig. 20 and Fig. 21, in
the windbreak fence 82, there are placed wall braces 87
necessary for causing it to withstand a wind speed of 50 m/s.
Fig. 17 illustrates a view of the placement thereof. Fig. 16
illustrates the portions at which baffle plates 88 are mounted,
and Fig. 18 and Fig. 19 illustrate details of the mounting
thereof.
The small quadrate mark in Fig. 16 indicate poles 84, and
all the solid line portions other than the poles indicate the
baffle plates 88. This windbreak fence 82 has a polyvinyl
chloride corrugated panel 90 attached thereto. This
corrugated panel is colored, by coating, in a transparent color
or a color which reflects red light and far-red light in order
to enable pesticide-free cultivation.
[0104]
Such transparent polyvinyl chloride corrugated panels 90
are generally used as materials of roofs and walls of factories
and warehouses, in order to introduce light therethrough.
72
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
Accordingly, in order to improve ventilation, ventilating
ascendable doors 92 (see Fig. 13) are mounted. The respective
greenhouses 80 are regularly arranged, as illustrated in Fig.
13, to create paths for passing air therethrough, and the
ventilating doors are mounted at the opposite ends of these
paths. The baffle plates 88 illustrated in Fig. 16 are placed
and mounted in 4-m squares. In this state, windstorms are
diffused and blown threinto from above. Particularly, when
winds blow in the directions of the diagonal lines illustrated
in Fig. 22, they become 5.656 m, due to the value 4 mm. This
substantially nulls the speed reduction ability.
[0105]
On the contrary, as illustrated in Fig. 16, the baffle
plates 88 are installed along the diagonal lines of the
respective squares and, therefore, in the case of winds in the
direction A in Fig. 22, the maximum interval is 2000 mm and,
in the direction D, the maximum interval is 2828 mm. Referring
to the right part of Table 28, the wind speed at the measurement
position 2000 mm is {(100-72.3)/100} x 50 = 13.85 m/s, and a
windstorm at 50 m/s can be reduced in wind speed to 13.85 m/s.
Furthermore, this value is a value at a position below the top
portion of the windbreak fence 82 by 450 mm, but the present
example regards the position below the top portion by 1434.5
mm, and the wind speed at the measurement position 2000 mm will
be reduced to a wind speed close to { (100-80.9) /100} x 50 = 9.55
73
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
m/s.
[0106]
In the case of winds in the direction A' in Fig. 22, the
wind speed is { (100-74) /100} x 50 = 13 m/s, at a position below
the top portion by 450 mm, with reference to Table 29A. Further,
at a position therebelow by 1.5 m, a wind speed of 50 m/s is
changed to {(100-82.3)/100} x 50 = 8.85 m/s. In order to
determine the interval from a baffle plate F in Fig. 22 to a
measurement point E (a measurement point spaced apart by 3500
mm from the perforated portion 54), Fig. 23 was created based
on dimensions around the baffle plate F. Since x equals to
500-300 and therefore is 200mm, and a baffle plate B is parallel
to the straight line A'-E, there is a right triangle shape.
Accordingly, y is also 200 mm, and the interval from the baffle
plate F to the measurement point E is 3200 mm. A straight line
G is drawn in parallel with the baffle plate B, and a line
orthogonal to the baffle plate B is drawn from a point K, so
that Z equals to 150. Accordingly, the interval between the
measurement point E and the baffle plate F at a position spaced
apart by 150 m from the baffle plate B in parallel to the baffle
plate B in Fig. 22 is 3000 + 200+150 = 3350 mm. This means that,
since there is an interval of 3200 mm between the baffle plate
F and the measurement point 3500 mm in the right part of Table
29, the interval is increased by 150 mm since the measurement
point is further spaced apart by 150 mm from the measurement
74
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
point in the right part of Table 29. Referring to the right
parts of Tables 28 and 29, it can be seen that the increase of
about 150 mm induces no large changes.
[0107]
It can be seen that, in the case of installing the baffle
plates at intervals of 4 m, the intervals 4 m appear only near
the baffle plates B. However, this interval is larger than that
of the aforementioned experiments, only by 4000-3200 = 800 mm
at a maximum. Furthermore, these areas are near the baffle
plates B. Since it has been revealed, from the aforementioned
measurement experiments, that the baffle plate 86 (the
perforated portion) mounted to the windbreak fence 82 and the
internal baffle plates 88 have different speed reduction
abilities, it is necessary to make considerations in such a way
as to distinguish therebetween. Specifically, referring to
the right parts of Tables 26 to 29, even if the interval is
increased by about 1 m, the baffle plates inside the windbreak
fence (the right parts of Tables 26 and 28) are in areas at
distances of 2000 mm or more from the windbreak fence 82 and,
regarding the right parts of Tables 29 and 27, they are in areas
at distances of 500 mm or more from the windbreak fence, both
of which are not problematic values. Next, in the area from
the windbreak fence 82 to the baffle plates 88, the maximum
interval is 1500 mm and 2000 mm, and regarding the right part
of Table 27, the maximum interval is 3000 mm, all of which are
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
not problematic.
[0108]
The problematic portions are portions near the baffle
plates B in Fig. 22 and Fig. 23 in which the intervals 4 m appear
in Fig. 22. No measurements were conducted in these portions,
but in the area between the windbreak fence and the baffle plates,
the area in the range of 50 to 2000 mm in the right part of Table
28 corresponds to the aforementioned problematic portions.
Referring to the right part of Table 28, if the interval is
increased by 800 mm (4000-3200 = 800), this will induce a
difference between 50 mm and 1000 mm (0.8%), a difference
between 500 mm and 1500 mm (9.60-.), and a difference between 1000
mm and 2000 mm (9.5%), and the speed reduction ratio will be
reduced by amounts corresponding thereto. Due to the reduction
by these amounts, in the case of a wind speed of 50 m/s, the
portion of the wind speed which will not be reduced is (9.6/100)
x 50 = 4.8 m/s. Accordingly, in calculation, this will result
in a wind speed of 13.65 m/s (= 8.85 + 4.8). In the case of
the internal baffle plates 88, the area in the range of 500 to
3500 mm regarding the right part of Table 29 corresponds to the
aforementioned problematic portions. A difference between 500
and 1500 mm (9.2%) , a difference between 1000 and 2000 mm (12.6%) ,
a difference between 1500 and 2500 mm (4.3%), a difference
between 2000 and 3000 mm (-0.20-.), and a difference between 2500
and 3500 mm (1. 9%) will be induced. Out of these speed reduction
76
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
ratios, the difference between 2000 mm and 3000 mm has a negative
value. This is caused by the baffle plates installed in an x
shape along the diagonal lines, and the same phenomenon occurred
in the aforementioned experiments. Since the speed reduction
ratio will be reduced by these amounts, the wind speed will be
increased by 6.3 m/s (= (12.6/100) x 50), and therefore the wind
speed will become 15.15 m/s (= 8.85 + 6.3).
[01091
A wind speed of 15.15 m/s indicates strong winds, but it
is possible to install sufficiently-inexpensive greenhouses,
in such a way as to only interrupt winds with this degree of
strength. Furthermore, this wind speed occurs only at portions
spaced apart by about 10 to 30 mm from the baffle plates, and
these are only in the range of 20 to 60 mm at the opposite sides
of the baffle plates. Therefore, there is a significantly low
possibility that windstorms at a wind speed of 50 m/s blow just
at this angle. If the direction A' in Fig. 22 is obliquely
inclined by only a small amount, this decreases the distance
by which winds which blow between the baffle plates F and I in
Fig. 22 travel. In the present example, 4-m squares are
employed between the baffle plates in consideration of these
facts, but in the event of the occurrence of problems after the
construction, it is possible to take countermeasures
thereagainst, such as changing the longitudinal width of the
baffle plates to 450 or 500 mm or increasing the height of the
77
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
windbreak fence for increasing the interval between the
greenhouse top portions and the windbreak-fence top portion.
[0110]
Non-Patent literature 1 describes spectral balances for
main photoreactions of plants, as follows, in pages 78 and 79.
[0111]
"Fig. 33 illustrates a spectrum for a main photo reaction
of plants. This illustrates relative values of effects per unit
energy. Plants basically grow by photosynthesis [8], and the
other important photoreactions include photomorphogenesis.
This includes low fluence rate-response [10] and [11] and high
fluence rate-response [9], which induce quality changes in
plants, such as seed germination, flower bud differentiation,
efflorescence, evolution of cotyledons, chlorophyll synthesis,
and intercalary elongation, through actions of pigments called
phytochrome. Under strong light, chlorophyll synthesis has a
tendency to be facilitated by blue light while being obstructed
by red light. Red light offers a largest effect in
photosynthesis, while blue light is necessary for normal
morphogenesis in leaves. In other words, red light in the range
of about 640 to 690 nm and blue light in the range of 420 to
470 nm are effective. It has been revealed, from experiments
for growth with varying spectral distributions, that it is
desirable to employ a composition of red light and blue light
in a preferable balance, in order to grow plants sanely. The
78
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
ratio between these two spectral is referred to as an R/B ratio,
and it is likely that the value thereof is preferably in the
range of 1 to 10, in general.
[0112]
Recently, there has been found that far infrared light
(FR) centered at 730 nm shown at the right end of Fig. 33 has
a prominent intercalary elongation effect and, also, there has
been revealed that the red-to-far-infrared ratio R/FR has a
nonnegligible effect on growth. In general, the elongation is
facilitated in the case of R/FR<l, and there is a tendency to
cause dwarfing in the opposite case. Visible light can not
easily pass through clusters of plants, which increases the
ratio of far infrared light, thereby making R/FR smaller than
1. Plants could adapt to this condition. Accordingly, far
infrared light has the function of facilitating the elongation
and growth of plants. Most of photomorphogenesis is
facilitated by red light, but is reversibly obstructed by far
infrared light."
[01131
Assuming that spectral radiances in the wavelength range
of 615 to 680 nm which have a red light effect on
photomorphogenesis is red light R, spectral radiances in the
blue light wavelength range of 420 to 470 nm for strong light
reactions in photomorphogenesis is blue light B, and spectral
radiances in the wavelength range of 700 to 750 nm which have
79
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
a far infrared light effect on photomorphogenesis is far
infrared light FR, sunlight is attenuated by reflection so that
it changes such that the R/B ratio increases and also changes
such that the R/FR ratio decreases. Hereinafter, the ratios
of red light R to blue light B and far infrared light FR will
be referred to as photo ratios. The changes of the photo ratios
are induced by the physical phenomenon that light with longer
wavelengths has higher energy. Specifically, light (B) has a
shortest wavelength, and light (R) and light (FR) have longer
wavelengths in ascending order of (R) and (FR) , and, therefore,
light (B) has lowest energy, light (R) has second highest energy
and light (FR) has highest energy. When sunlight is inserted
into clusters of plants, it impinges on branches and leaves of
trees because the light (FR) has the highest energy, which
increases the R/B ratio since (B) attenuates more largely than
(R) while decreasing the R/FR ratio since (R) attenuates more
largely than (FR).
[0114]
It has also been found from experiments that, for C3
plants, there are places most suitable for their respective
species, within clusters of plants, namely there are photo
ratios most suitable therefor. In consideration of the fact
that C3 plants have different photosynthesis-rate saturation
light intensities for their respective species and, also, the
fact that sunlight has different illuminances at the entrance
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
and the back of the clusters of plants, it is suggested that
there are places most suitable for the respective species of
C3 plants within the clusters of plants. Shade plants, out of
C3 plants, naturally grow in shades, while semi-shade plants,
out of C3 plants, naturally grow in places in which there is
mixture of sunny places and shades resulted from sunshine
streaming through leaves. Progenitors of crops, out of C3
plants, expect shade plants and semi-shade plants, have
naturally grown in sunny places resulted from sunshine
streaming through leaves. Humans have cultivated them in bare
grounds and repeatedly performed breed improvements thereon to
create crops of C3 plants expect shade plants and semi-shade
plants. Accordingly, photo environments which enable
pesticide-free cultivation for crops of C3 plants, expect shade
plants and semi-shade plants, are environments having photo
ratios having spectra of sunny places resulted from sunshine
streaming through leaves, rather than shades and bare grounds.
[0115]
This can be clearly seen from the fact that, when panax
ginsengs, which are shade plants, are planted in bare grounds,
they fade and, also, the fact that when Japanese horseradishes
are planted in bare grounds, they fade. If C3 plants, except
shade plants and semi-shade plants, are introduced into bare
grounds from sunny places resulted from sunshine streaming
through leaves, this will cause them to fall ill or cause them
81
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
to be eaten by destructive insects. In other words, in order
to prevent their fading or prevent ills and destructive insects,
it is necessary only to return them to places in respective photo
environments within clusters of plants, which can be called
their hometowns.
[0116]
The house windbreak mechanism according to the present
invention is constituted by a plurality of baffle plates, poles
and the like, which causes sunlight to impinge thereon. In
other words, it is possible to provide photo environments close
to clusters of plants.
[0117]
Experiment (1)
1. Objects of Experiments
Red light (R) has a wavelength range 615 to 680 nm, which
is coincident to functional wavelengths for photosynthesis.
Red paint of the red light (R) is sprayed to plastic greenhouse
for coloring them until their transmittance reaches 50 to 70 0 ,
in order to confirm that the growth rate of plants is affected
by the fact that the ratio of functional wavelengths for
photosynthesis in the cultivation space is larger than that in
bare grounds and by the fact that the balance among red light
(R), blue light (B) and far infrared light (FR) for
photomorphogenesis has been changed to improve the vitality of
plants.
82
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
2. Places for Experiments
Shinonome Town, Kochi City, Kochi Prefecture
3. Implementation Term
January 11 2008 to March 27 2008
[0118]
4. Cultivation Condition
Greenhouse G-a: see Fig. 29. Waterborne paint (having
a red color, see Fig. 30, and being of a spray type) was sprayed
to a vinyl with a thickness of 0.05 mm which was made of
polyethylene until its average transmittance reached 46.4% to
create the greenhouse, and, further, two boxes was made of foam
polystyrene with a length of 770 mm, a width of 250 mm and a
height of 350 mm were installed in the greenhouse.
Greenhouse G-b: see Fig. 29. Waterborne paint (having
a red color, see Fig. 30, and being a spray type) was sprayed
to a vinyl with a thickness of 0.05 mm which was made of
polyethylene until its average transmittance reached 67.9% to
create the greenhouse and, further, two boxes was made of foam
polystyrene with a length of 770 mm, a width of 250 mm and a
height of 350 mm were installed in the greenhouse.
Greenhouse G-c: A white-light fluorescent lamp was
mounted to the greenhouse G-b, and the vinyl had a red color
with an average transmittance of 66.7%. The white-light
fluorescent lamp was lighted during a time period in the morning
from AM 5; 4 0 to AM 8: 3 0 and a time period in the evening f rom
83
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
PM 4:40 to PM 6:30.
Greenhouse G-d: see Fig. 29. No red vinyl (reference
numeral 12) was employed. Instead thereof, the greenhouse
employed a vinyl with a tint pink color. The vinyl greenhouse
was constituted by the tint-pink vinyl surrounding its ceiling
and periphery in order to prevent sunlight from being inserted
therein, and, further, two boxes was made of foam polystyrene
with a length of 770 mm, a width of 250 mm and a height of 350
mm were installed in the vinyl greenhouse. See the spectrum
of the color of the tint-pink vinyl in Fig. 31.
In order to warm up the aforementioned greenhouses G-a,
G-b, G-c and G-d, electric heaters were installed in the plastic
greenhouses constituted by the vinyl surrounding their ceilings
and peripheries.
Greenhouse [8]: A normal plastic greenhouse installed at
a position far from the red greenhouses and red reflective
plates. See Fig. 32. Two boxes was made of foam polystyrene
with a length of 770 mm, a width of 250 mm and a height of 350
mm were installed therein. The plastic greenhouse was
constituted by a vinyl surrounding its ceiling and periphery,
in order to prevent sunlight from being inserted therein. An
electric heater was installed in the plastic greenhouse, in
order to warm it up.
[0119]
5. Photo Environment
84
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
The greenhouse [8] was a normal plastic greenhouse in
which an electric heater was installed for warming it up. The
greenhouses G-a, G-b, G-c and G-d were installed within a normal
plastic greenhouse. Accordingly, sunlight was passed through
the normal vinyl, then was passed through the vinyl subjected
to spraying of the red paint and, then, entered the cultivation
spaces. Table 37 illustrates the average transmittances under
the aforementioned conditions. Measurements were conducted at
three positions (A), (B) and (C) in the cultivation spaces.
[0120]
[Table 37]
February 15 2008 (Friday) [sunny]
Measurement Measurement Illuminance at Illuminance inside Greenhouse (lx)
Transmittance (%) Average
Place Time Hare Ground (In) A B (C) (A) (B) (C) Transmittance
Greenhouse 1126 69,800 24,700 25,200 29,100 35.4 36.1 41.7 37.70%
G-a
Greenhouse 11 : 2 9 70,200 35,700 38,400 37,200 50.9 54.7 53.0 52.90%
G-b
Greenhouse 1134 71,000 35,100 38,600 40,600 49.4 54.4 57.2 53.70%
G-c
Greenhouse 1136 71,300 52,500 49,100 53,100 73.6 68.9 74.5 72.30%
G d
Greenhouse 113 9 71,900 62,600 63,700 61,300 87.1 88.6 85.3 87.00%
[0121]
6. Operation Procedures
Supply of water in an amount of 2 liters once everyday
Measurements of the temperatures within the greenhouses
at AM 8:25, AM 10:10, PM 1:00 and PM 3:10
7. Cultivated Plants
Spinach, sunny lettuce and radish greens
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0122]
8. Record of Cultivation
On January 11 2008, seeds of spinach, radish greens and
sunny lettuce were sown in the greenhouses G-a, G-b, G-c and
G-d and the greenhouse [8].
On January 15, germination of spinach, radish greens and
sunny lettuce was observed in the greenhouses G-a, G-b, G-c.
Germination of radish greens and sunny lettuce had occurred in
the greenhouse G-d. No germination had occurred in the
greenhouse [8].
On January 18, germination of seeds of all the species
sown in all the greenhouses had occurred, but the numbers of
buds in the greenhouses G-a, G-b and G-c were larger than that
in the greenhouse [8] . This could be seen at first glance. The
difference was determined to be large, without counting.
On March 6, the radish greens and the spinach were
ingathered.
On March 27, the sunny lettuce was ingathered.
[0123]
9. Results of Experiments
[Table 38]
Cultivation Radish Green Spinach Sunny Lettuce Sunny Lettuce
Greenhouse (including Roots) (including Roots) (including Roots) (except
Roots)
Greenhouse 9 8 g 9 2 g 1 9 6 g 1 8 4 g
G-a
Greenhouse
G-b 1 2 6 9 1 0 6 g 2 1 0 g 1 9 0 g
Greenhouse 9 2 g 1 4 0 g 1 2 8 g 1 1 2 g
G-c
Greenhouse 1 6 0 g 9 0 g 2 1 4 g 2 0 2 g
G-d
Greenhouse 7 4 g 7 0 g 1 2 2 g 1 0 8 g
G- (8]
86
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
The following table illustrates the summation of
comparisons in growth rate with the normal greenhouse
cultivation.
[Table 39]
Cultivation Radish Green Spinach Sunny Lettuce
Greenhouse (including Roots) (including Roots) (including Roots)
Greenhouse 1 , 3 times 1 .3 times 1 .6 times
G-a
Greenhouse 1 7 times 1. 5 times 1. 7 times
G-b
Greenhouse
1. 2 times Z. p times 1 .05times
G-c
Greenhouse 2 .2 times 1 = 3 times 1 . g times
[0124]
The aforementioned experiments resulted in the fact that
all the greenhouses could realize larger growth rates than that
of the normal greenhouse, although the growth rates of the
respective types of vegetables were slightly different from one
another. This is because the greenhouses subjected to spraying
of the red paint had different average transmittances, but
satisfied the required photosynthesis-rate saturation light
intensity. Accordingly, they were under the same condition
regarding the factor of the light intensity, but, regarding the
light quality, as can be seen by referring to Fig. 33, the peak
wavelength range of the red light effect for photomorphogenesis
was overlapped with the peak wavelength range for photonic
synthesis. It has been revealed that, because of this fact,
in the greenhouses subjected to the spraying of the red paint,
the ratio of the photonicsynthesis functional wavelengths in
87
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
the cultivation space was larger, which made the
photonicsynthesis rate and the growth rate larger than the
normal greenhouse. At the same time, there were different photo
ratios in the greenhouses G-a to G-d. Accordingly, the results
of the experiments shows that it is possible to increase the
growth rate, by making the photo ratio coincident to that of
a spectrum of sunny places resulted from sunshine streaming
through leaves, for radish greens, spinach and sunny lettuce.
[01251
There are different photo ratios near the entrance and
in the back side of clusters of plants and, in consideration
of this fact, it can be understood, from the aforementioned
results of experiments, there are photo ratios which are most
suitable for the respective species of C3 plants including
radish greens, spinach and sunny lettuce. Although there are
most suitable photo ratios therefor, it is not necessary to
search for these photo ratios. This is because the photo ratio
changes since sunlight is reflected or transmitted as described
above. Accordingly, species which adapt to and naturally grow
in the optical environment at the entrance of clusters of plants
can adapt to sunlight which is less reflected. In other words,
they prefer to environments which have photo ratios less
different from those of bare grounds and have higher
photosynthesis-rate saturation light intensities. On the
other hand, species which adapt to and naturally grow in optical
88
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
environments in the back of clusters of plants or in clusters
of dense plants are suitable for sunlight which has been
repeatedly reflected many times. In other words, they prefer
to environments which have photo ratios largely different from
those of bare grounds and have significantly lower
photosynthesis-rate saturation light intensities.
[0126]
Accordingly, it is necessary only to form cultivation
greenhouses from an optically-transparent material which is
made of a material capable of passing, therethrough, visible
light rays in the wavelength range of 380 to 780 nm out of
sunlight and is characterized in that the spectrum of its color
has respective peak values for red light (R) and far infrared
light (FR) and, also, spectral radiances in wavelength ranges
other than those of the red light (R) and the far infrared light
(FR) are zero or smaller than the spectral radiances of the red
light (R) or the far infrared light (FR) . Further, it is
necessary only to ensure brightness with photosynthesis-rate
saturation light intensities for vegetables to be cultivated
within the inside of the cultivation greenhouses, with a
predetermined transmittance of the optically-transparent
material. Further, even with such an optically-transparent
material, the photo ratio is changed depending on the thickness,
type of the material thereof, the density of its color and the
like. Therefore, it is necessary only to ensure brightness with
89
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
photosynthesis-rate saturation light intensities for crops of
C3 plants to be cultivated within the inside of the cultivation
greenhouse, with a predetermined transmittance of the
optically-transparent material.
[0127]
Experiment (2)
1. Object
During the summer season having bright sunshine, there
is sufficient brightness even if sunlight is passed through a
red-colored vinyl. Accordingly, eggplants were cultivated
within plastic greenhouses employing a red-colored vinyl and
being capable of ensuring brightness with a photosynthesis-rate
saturation light intensity for eggplants within the cultivation
greenhouses and the number of ingathered crops was compared.
2. Place for Experiments
Shinonome Town, Kochi City, Kochi Prefecture
3. Experimental period
July 15 2008 to August 30 2008
[0128]
4. Conditions of Experiments
4-1. The Equipment of the Cultivation greenhouses:
hereinafter, "red greenhouses" will refer to cultivation
greenhouses painted in a red color at their portions other than
the vinyl and the outside of pots within the greenhouses.
Cultivation greenhouse [2] : a red greenhouse having a red
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
vinyl attached thereto without employing a normal vinyl
Cultivation greenhouse [14]: a red greenhouse employing
a normal vinyl and having a reflective plate and a red net
attached thereto (see Fig. 34)
Cultivation greenhouse [8]: a normal plastic greenhouse
installed at a position far from the red greenhouses (see Fig.
32)
4-2: Spectra of Materials used for Realizing Optical
Environments within Cultivation greenhouses as in 4-3
Waterborne paint (a red-color spray) was employed in
order to color the reflective plates and the red vinyl in a red
color. See Fig. 30.
See Fig. 35 illustrating the spectrum of the oil-based
paint used for coloring the insides of the cultivation
greenhouses and the net in a red color.
4-3. Illuminance within Respective Greenhouses and
Illuminance in Bare Grounds
The following table illustrates the illuminances in a
bare ground and the illuminances within the greenhouses [2] [14]
around PM 3:00. The photosynthesis-rate saturation light
intensity for eggplants is 40000 lx.
91
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
[0129]
[Table 40]
August 25 2008 (Monday) [mostly sunny]
Measurement Illuminance at Inside Greenhouse optical
Measurement Place Average Transmittance
Time Bare Ground Illuminance Illuminance
Cultivation Greenhouse 5 6 5 0 C About
2 14:56 72000Qx 5450024 55700Qx 77.40%
(Red-sprayed Greenhouse) 5 6 0 O R x
Cultivation Greenhouse 4 8 0 0 O Q x About
14 . 14:58 71 500Qx 46 OP 65.70%
(Red-net Greenhouse) 4 7 0 C R x 4 7 0 0 0 Q x
Cultivation Greenhouse 6 1 0 0 O 2 About
8 15:03 70500Qx 630 0 OQx 62000Qx 87.90%
(Farmer Greenhouse) 6 2 0 0 CQx
[0130]
5. Cultivation Method of Experiment (2)
5-1. Eggplants (Senryo 2-go/Tonashimu)
Operation Procedures
Measurements of the temperature and the humidity were
conducted at four times a day at AM 8:25, AM 10:10, PM 1:00 and
PM 3:10.
At PM 1:00, the east reflective plate was set, instead
of the west reflective plate. Measurements of the temperature
and the humidity were conducted, and the number of f lowers was
checked, and sprayed Tomato Tone which contain fruit-setting
hormone was applied thereto. Water was supplied in an amount
of 2 liters (the amount of water was doubled in the days previous
to holidays).
At about sunset, water was supplied in an amount of 2
liters (the amount of water was doubled in the days previous
to holidays).
92
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
The east reflective plate was withdrawn, and the west
reflective plate was ascended.
[0131]
6. Results of Experiment (2)
July 15 (Tuesday); the cultivation was started.
July 19 (Saturday); flowers started to bloom. The
temperature within the greenhouse [2] reached 40 degrees C.
July 21 (Monday); the temperatures within the greenhouses
[2] and [14] reached 40 degrees C. Flowers abscised in the
greenhouses [14][8].
July 26 (Saturday); fans were installed in the
greenhouses [2], [14] and [8], since the temperatures in the
greenhouses were excessively high. The temperatures therein
were dropped by about 5 degrees C by the fans.
August 7 (Thursday); a single eggplant was ingathered
from the greenhouse [2] , and two eggplants were ingathered from
the greenhouse [8] . There will be described below, the total
sum of flowers which had bloomed up to today, the total sum of
flowers which had abscised up to today, and the total sum of
effective bloomed flowers which was resulted from the
subtraction of the number of abscised flowers from the number
of bloomed flowers.
[Table 41]
Blossomed Abscised The Number of
Greenhouse Flowers Flowers Effective
Flowers
[2] 28 3 25
[14] 19 4 15
[8] 28 9 19
93
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
August 30 (Saturday)
[Table 42]
Blossomed Abscised The Number of The Total Sum of
Greenhouse Effective
Flowers Flowers Flowers Ingathered Crops
F
2 100 43 57 39
114 60 28 32 19
F89 57 32 27
Occurrences of injurious insects were observed in the
greenhouse [8], but no occurrence of injurious insects was
observed in the greenhouses [2] and [14]. There was induced
a sufficient difference in amount of crops between the
greenhouses [2] and [8]. In other words, the object of the
experiment was attained, and the experiment was completed
today.
[0132]
The greenhouses [2][14)[8] had, inside thereof,
brightness equal to or more than 40000 lx which is a
photosynthesis-rate saturation light intensity for eggplants.
Regarding the brightness within the greenhouses, the greenhouse
[8] had highest brightness, the greenhouse [2] had second
highest brightness, and the greenhouse [14] had highest
darkness. Accordingly, the amount of eggplants ingathered in
the darkest greenhouse [14] was smallest, as a matter of course.
However, as of August 30, the amount of eggplants ingathered
in the greenhouse [2] having darkness larger by about 10% than
that of the brightest green house [8] was about 1.44 times that
of the greenhouse [8] . By making the R/B ratio larger than that
94
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
of bare grounds and also making the R/FR ratio smaller than that
of bare grounds, it is possible to ingather a larger amount of
eggplants, even with brightness lower by about 10%. Further,
regarding the amount of eggplants ingathered in the green house
[14] having brightness lower by about 24%, the amount of
eggplants ingathered in the green house [8] was about 1.42 times
that of the green house [14].
[0133]
However, the greenhouse [14] having a smallest optical
transmittance, namely having a largest R/B ratio in comparison
with that of bare grounds and having a smallest R/FR ratio in
comparison with that of bare grounds, out of the greenhouses
[2] [14] [8] , had highest activity. This is revealed by the fact
that the number of abscised flowers was smallest. The
greenhouse [2] had second highest activity and, therefore, it
had been revealed that the injurious insect preventing effect
was increased with increasing amount of change in the photo
ratio. As of August 30, a larger amount of flowers had been
abscised in the greenhouse [8], and therefore the number of
effective flowers resulted from the subtraction of the number
of abscised flowers from the number of bloomed flowers was equal
to that of the greenhouse [14]. Eggplants have the property
of certainly producing fruit after blooming.
[0134]
Accordingly, the fact that the number of effective
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
flowers was equal thereto indicates that the numerical value
indicative of the amount of crops ingathered in the greenhouse
[8] which was 1.42 times that of the greenhouse [14] was a halfway
numerical value, and finally the difference in amount of
ingathered crops therebeween would become smaller than 1.42.
The present experiments revealed that it was possible to
provide the effect of increasing the amount of ingathered crops
in addition to the injurious-insect preventing effect, by
performing cultivation while maintaining brightness with a
photosynthesis-rate saturation light intensity for plants to
be cultivated, in an optical environment having a larger R/B
ratio than that of bare grounds and having a smaller R/FR ratio
than that of bare grounds.
[0135]
Description of Reference Numerals
1: Greenhouse windbreak mechanism
2: Plastic greenhouse
3: Windbreak fence
5: Ventilation portion
7: Baffle plate
12: Red vinyl (waterborne paint: red color)
13: Red vinyl supporting tool (oil-based paint: red
color)
14: Two boxes was mad of foam polystyrene for
cultivation (oil-based paint: red color)
96
CA 02696924 2010-03-30
15: Light shield plate (for surrounding the periphery
for preventing light from being inserted therein, veneer plates
which are not colored)
16: Greenhouse (red net: oil-based paint) created by
applying a red net to only the ceiling of a normal plastic green
house having vinyl attached to its periphery and ceiling (vinyl:
transparent)
17: Reflective plate (waterborne paint: red color)
18: Reflective-plate supporting tool (oil-based
paint: red color)
19: Six cultivation pots (oil-based paint: red color)
20: Normal plastic greenhouse having vinyl attached to
its ceiling and periphery (transparent)
97
