On page 268 of the " Homebrew Wind Power " book it does say it's a 3000 or more continuous watt turbine and peaks of double or more are possible from it.
Yes, it's a poor wind site turbine. It would not survive two weeks here where I live. They make great power in lower wind speeds because of the swept area, and I suspect that's what drove the Dan's to keep trying to scale them bigger and bigger. They have thin air at 6,000 feet, which doesn't have much power in it. And they got turbulence thru the rotor because of the area they live in.
The other extreme is somebody that lives on the plains at 1,500 feet elevation and you can see for 40 miles in every direction. In Kansas you'd better have a wind turbine that's built like a tank or it won't make it thru its first afternoon.
Most folks live somewhere in between those two extremes. The folks that have built those and put them on good wind sites have had nothing but problems.
--
Chris
Edit: I guess that can apply to any of the plains states. In Kansas the standard wind speed indicator is a length of log chain nailed to a fence post. If the chain is at 45 degrees to the post it's a light spring breeze. If the chain is standing straight out it means a real wind might pick up later. But I've been in North Dakota along I94 and US2 where if you stick a wind turbine up 30 feet in the air there's not much between that turbine rotor and the Montana and Canadian borders except wind.
The venerable Jacobs turbines are numerous in the plains states. And many of them have been running for better than 30 years.