Have any of you been following Patrick AKA Cyclonebuster’s attempts to persuade people he’s found the solution to global warming? He’s promoting an idea that he believes will both
b) generate energy in the process of cooling the sea surface.
The idea involves inserting some sort of big tunnel in the gulf stream which he has been promoting for years now; here’s a post from 2006. He’s recently created a 1/600th scale mockup. During the “cooling” mode of operation, water is supposed to enter the pipe at the lower inlet shown to the left, travel up the pipe, pass by a turbine, generate energy and then exit, mixing with warm upper waters. This will evidently generate power and cool the surface waters.
I’m not going to comment on whether the strength of hurricanes could be reduced by cooling the surface waters. That’s a question for the hurricane experts.
However, I do want to go on record as saying this: Unless lots and lots gas bubbles are come out of solution as the water rises up the tube only very insignificant amounts of water could possibly flow up a long inclined tube. Very, very little water would flow through a very long horizontal tube. Adding a turbine, screens and other features can only make less water flow up the tube. Consequently, the method will not simultaneously cool the sea surface and generate energy to replace fossil fuel.
I can say with some confidence that, if presented as an undergraduate engineering pipe flow problem, the first approximation for the velocity of water in the pipe will be zero. Seriously. That would be the solution based on a 1-D flow analysis using loss coefficients.
Granted, because water is aimed towards the entrance, and is running parallel to the exit, it might be possible for some eager beaver to try the second approximation. After all, they might reason, “If the tube is very short compared to its diameter, it becomes a hoop. I know water will flow through a hoop. So, for hoops and short tubes, the answer can’t be exactly zero.”
It’s true. The flow will not be exactly zero. Exact analysis would involve a) knowing the actual proposed geometry, and b) doing rather complicated 2 or 3-d analyses, and possibly CFD. But if the tube is long compared to it’s length, even without the venturi or the turbine flow is going to be pretty darn slow.
Hey, can’t be a bigger waste of money than OTEC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
:-p
If someone spent money on it, it could be very bad.
If you want to stick a turbine in the gulf stream, it’s probably wiser to just make an underwater “wind” turbine. Maybe add a chicken-fish wire upstream to reduce fish kill.
I’m totally confused.
The Gulf Stream is supposed to be warm water flowing northward near the surface. Is he planning to capture the warm water in the tube or some cooler water underneath? The latter would constitute colder, heavier water which is also not flowing as fast in the direction of interest, so why would it flow up the pipe and mix with the surface water?
Oliver–
The idea is complicated. If you squint at the image, you’ll see he drew a diagonal line next to the “Y” connector. There is supposed to be some sort of valve in there. There are two modes:
Mode 1: The valve is in “not-cooling” position. In this mode where warm water enters at the left and flows out at the right. I think no cold water enters. Power is supposed to be generated as this water rushes by the turbine causing it to turn. In this case, if the pipe is long, 1-D undergraduate pipeflow analysis will predict 0 flow velocity. (You need some very complicated 2-D analysis to find the small value above 0 velocity that you might get.)
Mode 2: The valve is in “cooling” position. In this mode, the valve blocks the upper inlet, and the water comes in through the bottom left entrance, flows past the turbine, and exists. Because it’s cold, it also mixes with the surface water, cooling and prevents hurricanes. Unfortunately, 1-D undergrad analysis for a long pipe says no water will rise through the pipe. So, no power will be generated, and no cooling will ensue. (Once again, some slick 2 or 3 D analysis might permit a teensie-beensie bit of flow. )
You will notice I didn’t even discuss the issue of the cold water being heavier. The fact is, there is no reason for the heavier water to rise at this location, but even if density was constant, it still wouldn’t rise.
In otherwords: It won’t flow up the pipe.
It looks like he’s relying entirely on the ‘initial velocity’ aspect and assuming that he would get 6mph as the inlet velocity. That’s 2.6 m/s.
The stored kinetic energy of a kilo of water moving 2.6 m/s is from KE = 1/2 * m * v * v = 3.55 J per kilo of water.
PE= m * g * h.
So, if IN = OUT -> KE = PE -> 3.55 = 9.8 * h -> h = 1.01 m.
So…. this is a perpetual motion machine if the water is lifted more than a meter. The flow isn’t even “nearly zero,” it is necessarily exactly zero. (At least, I don’t see any sort of vacuum arrangement or anything “pulling” the water up. Buoyancy fails, as noted.)
I have seen a similar concept, where wave motion pumps cooler water from several hundred meters down, and mixes it with warmer surface water. Of course, you need tens of thousands such pumps, just in the GOM, and that would screw up shipping lanes. And the cost? wow.
Geo-engineering? 15 years ago, I thought it might be a good idea. Too much Larry Niven, probably. But now, I feel that there are just too many bad things that can happen; both known and unknown.
Force 1 at tunnel inlet is greater than force 2 at tunnel outlet! Any difference in force and flow exists. Pascal is correct! I can be writtens as: F1>F2=FLOW
Lets see if I can explain it better for you!
As water impinges at tunnel inlet at depth or near the suface depending which phase the tunnel is in, this is a greater force than the water rushing past the tunnel exit near the surface which will create an even lower pressure than normal if the gulfstream was still and not flowing.. Making any sense yet?
Also underwater mountain ranges do the same thing. See Charelston bump!
“The Charleston Bump also deflects the flow of the Gulf Stream. As the Stream flows northward out of the Florida Straits, it encounters the Bump and is deflected offshore, causing eddies and other current features that are important fish habitats. This mixing and upwelling brings nutrient rich, deep water to the surface, enhancing plankton production and producing food for fishes.”
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/islands01/background/islands/sup11_bump.html
Hugh Willoughby former director at the the Hurricane research center in Miami Florida also told me that 20,000 of these tunnels can weaken such hurricanes as Andrew approaching from the East if used in the gulfstream. But for hurricanes such as Wilma it won’t work approaching from the SouthWest. But if you place the Tunnels in the LOOP CURRENT in the GOMEX then they can work there also.
Patrick Cyclonebuster:
1) In 14583, you are neglecting the weight of the water in your analysis. Weight is included in Pascals law. To understand what happens, do a problem with a long straw standing vertically in a pool of water. Even though the pressure is higher at the bottom of the pool (and straw) water will not flow up through the straw.
2) Pascals law applies in a fluid that is not flowing. Because “not flowing” is one of the assumptions, you need to be very careful when using it in flowing systems. (There are specific situations where pressure varies hydrostatically, as in Pascal’s law. But pipeflow isn’t one of them.)
3) Eddies forming downstream of an obstruction share little in common with your pipeing system.
Patrick-
I don’t know what you asked Hugh Willoughby nor do I know what he said. Unless
a) you add a pump, run by an external power source, or
b) loads and loads of dissolved gases turn this into a bubbly flow,
you cannot draw deep water up to the surface with these things with these things.
My guess is that Hugh answered some question where someone assumed some amount of water would be delivered. Water could be delivered: If you pumped it up. But your device will not simultaneously generate energy and bring cold water to the surface.
Correct you need to make a pressure differential to change the level or to create flow.
The tunnels set in the flow of the gulfstrean and anchored to the seabed is what sets up this pressure differential across the whole tunnel system. As Hugh willoughby told me ” The verticle rise of the water within the tunnel is propotrtional to the horizontal flow of the water outside the tunnels. In fact Frank Marks current director at HRD told me they would also be advecting as the water rushed out and some engineering would need to be in place to stop the advecting.
At first I wanted to use Nuclear Power to pump the water up for this but I thought it may be to expensive. So I had to think of a better way to do it. So I figured I could use what nature does to upwell the water.
You could also pump air down and let it rise thus changing the density.
Bernoulli effect also works in this!
Patrick Cyclonebuster
Why does Dr. Willobhby think this>
If the streamlines are not curved in the vicinity of the pipe exit, the pressure will vary hydrostatically outside the pipe exit. Do you have any reason to believe the pressure does not vary more or less hydrostatically between the lower levels of the pipe inlet and the upper level?
Generally speaking, if the physical properties of water are such as to encourage upwelling, the system will be hydrodynamicly unstable and the water will upwell without need of any tunnel. If this is an exception, you are going to need to explain precisely what it is about the gulfstream that results in pressure not varying hydrostaticly in the region you intend to install these tunnels. Or, if you can’t explain it, show the data indicates pressure does not vary hydrostaticly.
Or you can say Pascal works at the entrance of the tunnels while Bernoulli works at the exit of the tunnels!
Yes. This technology works for lifting fluid. You won’t be able to generate energy, but you can raise fluid this way. In fact, I’ve even seen test rigs to measure the relationship between the liquid flow rates as a function of gas injected. It’s pretty cool.
Tube, river, demonstrate.
Hurricanes create upwelling, offshore winds create upwelling and underwater mountains can create it. The tunnels copy what underwater mountain ranges do to create the upwelling because the energy within the tunnels is conserved. Since the energy within the tunnel is conserved the upwelling effect becomes greater than what a mountain range produces because that energy is not conserved.
Patrick–
No.
The most widely known form of Bernouilli’s equation applies along streamlines in frictionless flows. This means it applies upstream of the inlet to a pipe. It doesn’t apply inside the pipe and it doesn’t apply in a jet of fluid emitting from a pipe. The flow leaving the pipe is a jet, and viscous effects are not negligible. If the jet is faster than the surrounding fluid, it will expand and slow down as it moves away from the pipe exit. In the process, viscous effects (i.e. friction) result in mechanical energy degrading to heat.
Pascal’s law applies in fluids that are not flowing. It states pressure varies hydrostatically. (So, it’s lower at the top of the ocean than at the bottom.)
However, there are some cases with flow where pressure also varies hydrostatically. In frictionless flows where the streamlines are not curved, pressure will vary hydrostatically. (So, if you apply Pascal’s law, you get the correct answer even though, strictly speaking, you are applying something beyond Pascal’s law.)
As long as no holes are in the tunnel walls then the energy within is conserved.
In the physical sciences, Pascal’s law or Pascal’s principle states that “a change in the pressure of an enclosed incompressible fluid is conveyed undiminished to every part of the fluid and to the surfaces of its container.”[1]
This means to the top of the tunnel!
Derivation
Pressure is the result of a force applied over a specific area and that pressure is therefore measured by the formula P = F / A or “pressure equals force divided by area”. When a force is applied to an incompressible fluid, the area in question is the contact area between any two molecules of the fluid. That area is the same for any pair of molecules within the fluid. Because an incompressible fluid accepts and applies forces evenly throughout itself, the pressure will be equal at all points within the fluid. The molecules that are in contact with the surface of the container will push against that surface with the same pressure as between any two molecules anywhere else within the container because they have the same contact area with the molecules of the container as with each other.
If we consider that this container and its fluid contents are subject to gravity as an additional force then we must consider that the difference of pressure due to a difference in elevation within a fluid column is given by:
Think of the tunnel as a cyclinder even though it can be square!
Or as a hydraulic press!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Hydraulic_Force%2C_language_neutral.png
Patrick Cyclonebuster!
A ha!
Now I see the key bit you left off.
Ok. So, are you only going to run these during the tiny amount of time when the hurricane is actually directly over the tunnel? So, when the hurricane is directly over the exit, you are counting on the lower pressure sucking the water up? But, presumably, as it approaches or passes, there will be a period when water will runin reverse warm water will flow down through the pipe?
And then, much of the time, the winds are insufficient to suck up the surface anywhere near the pipe, and the whole thing just does nothing?
Strictly speaking “enclosed incompressible fluid” means something like a fishbowl without any sort of pump or a hydraulic pressure system. The fluid is not flowing.
The exit of the pipe system is not an “enclosed” fluid. It is free to flow.
Patrick– If your system manages to achieve any flow, the fluid in the tunnel is flowing. Pascals law does not apply because the fluid is not “enclosed”. Pascal’s law applies in motionless fluids.
The carburetor used in many reciprocating engines contains a venturi to create a region of low pressure to draw fuel into the carburetor and mix it thoroughly with the incoming air. The low pressure in the throat of a venturi can be explained by Bernoulli’s principle – in the narrow throat, the air is moving at its fastest speed and therefore it is at its lowest pressure.
This is what happens at the exit of the tunnels except it sucks the water out!
Motionless fluids untill force is applied and that force is the flowing gulfstream and in this case both towards the tunnel inlet and away from the tunnel outlet.
Now consider what happens to the cooler water as it exits the tunnel on top of the warmer water below it? It falls though it correct?
Basically all you are doing is setting up a pressure differential across the submerged tunnels using the flow of the gulftreams velocity. ANY pressure differential and flow will occur. Pretty simple.
I hope you can see how important the tunnels are in order to regulate our climate!
Patrick–
Yes. Venturi’s create a region of decreased pressure in the pipe. This is because pascals law does not apply in the region where fluid flows– that is, the venturi.
Pressure will vary hydrostatically in the small tube used to supply the fuel.
In your design, what is creating the venturi effect at the entrance of the tunnel? And when? Only when the hurricane passes? And when, in your theory of operation, the low pressure existing at your pipe exit?
Also sketch looks like the pipe exit is underwater. Right? I’m pretty sure if you describe the set of circumstances when you expect the most flow and you give me some dimensions, I can do the little undergraduate calculation and show the flow will be low. Or, possibly, you are thinking of some implementation I have not imagined.
The venturi effect is at the tunnel exit not the entrance as the water rushes past the exit.
Thank you very much lets see some calculations.
The flow will be low but the volume will be huge!
Patrick–If any cold water ever travels up the pipe/tunnel, it will tend to sink when it exits the pipe. However, this assumes water travels up the pipe/tunnel. Why should it ever do so?
Pressure differental across the underwater tunnel inlet and exit openings.
Patrick:
“Patrick Cyclonebuster (Comment#14601) June 15th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
In the physical sciences, Pascal’s law or Pascal’s principle states that “a change in the pressure of an enclosed incompressible fluid is conveyed undiminished to every part of the fluid and to the surfaces of its container.â€[1]
This means to the top of the tunnel!”
So the soda fountains out of your straw because the pressure is greater at the bottom of your iced drink? Wrong.
Please, just build a working unit of any size. That will help you to patent it, and you can sell your small power generator to houseboat owners. Then explain to us how it actually works.
You’re also wrong that nuclear power would be expensive. It’s the cheapest source of power.
You need more facts to put on the back of your envelopes.
I suspect that one would have better luck generating a cooling by using many large turbines (propellers) in the fastest flow, designed so the turbulence extends into cooler layers. Use the electricity to pump air down for further mixing and cooling.
But if you’re really serious about cooling, there’s a valley in Africa where a steady stream of nuclear explosions would increase its dust cloud and alter the westerly air and water flow across to equatorial South America.
If you don’t like nuclear explosions, you could hire a bunch of people to get black lung by manually stirring up dust all over the valley. Perhaps they could get maximum altitude of the dust if they fastened five huge straw brooms together by their handles, and by rotating the whole assembly the dust caught in the brooms would be tossed higher in the air by the straw at the top. You just need to keep your employees motivated so they will energetically sweep the valley with the straw man.
“If the streamlines aren’t curved, there will be no venturi effect no matter how rapidly the water flows. So, you need to explain why there would be a venturi effect.”
Blow air across a straw submerged in water the water rises in the straw. Same happens if you use water in stread of air! Streamlines being curved are not involved with this!
“Pressure differental across the underwater tunnel inlet and exit openings.
When pressure varies hydrostatically, it cannot drive any flow. Ever. So far, other than saying “Venturi†or “Bernouilliâ€, you have provided no evidence that the pressure between the pipe inlet and exit will vary in any way other than hydrostatic.”
Here is a question for you about the tunnels. Is force 1 greater than force 2 that I described earlier?
Your thinking is flawed.
Your thinking of it as a stactic system with no flow like placing a straw in a glass of water where the level in the straw is the same level outside the straw.
This all changes in a moving body of water!
Place the same straw in a moving body of water and turn the opening towards the current. What happens? The water inside the straw is now higher than the water outside the straw. Why does this occur? This is beause the flowing water exerts Its force against the the straw opening at depth. In fact, if you keep lowering the top of the straw into the flowing water you will see it overflow at a certain point. The opposite will happen if you face the opening of the straw away from the flowing water. What happens? The force of the flowing water rushing past the opening at depth creates a more negative pressure in the straw and the level will fall below that of what is outside the straw. If you do not belive it then test it like I did.
The tunnels submerged in the water use both forces combined to its advantage to create a higher pressure differential across both openings. These two forces when combined is what creates the flow..
Lucia –
Would this idea work if the upper tube was a Venturi shape? Back when Noah was a boy, I used Venturi tubes to measure the airspeed in wind tunnels.The decrease in area at the middle caused an increase in velocity whch made a little paddle wheel turn faster. One of the first things I did was to use a photo-transistor to allow electronic counting of the paddle rotation instead of the clockwork mechanical gearing.
As the velocity is higher in the smaller area middle section the kinetic energy is increased. This must reduce the static pressure so some degree of suction would be available to lift water from below.
CO2 has been converted to a magic gas, and now the physics of water is being transformed as well.
Perpetual motion meets AGW. A match made in heaven.
Maybe this is a sign that the crazines is peaking out.
Maybe.
The ocean is essentially stratified into layers of increasing density with the coldest, saltiest and most dense water at the bottom of the ocean and the warmer, (and less salty sometimes) least dense ocean water at the top.
Ocean water at the surface at 28C to 30C (the temps that get hurricanes going) will not be displaced by cold, salty water from the deeper ocean at 1.5C no matter what the pressure differential.
The thermohaline ocean circulation is based on this density differential.
The cold water would have to be pumped upwards and, hence, defeat the purpose of the project.
Jorge–
Because, contrary to Patrick’s theory of fluid flow, Pascal’s law does not apply in flowing fluids, it is true that we can create venturi effects.
So, in an engineered solution, it would be possible to put an additonal tunnel parallel to the exit of Cyclonebusters tunnel exit, with the throat of the venturi placed to lower the pressure at the “tunnel” exit. In the picture, that tunnel would look like it pointed toward us. That would lower the pressure at the throat of the venturi and could suck fluid up. (In fact, these sorts of things do exist in certain applications. )
But…. how do you drive flow through that tunnel? You pretty much need a powered pump to do drive that flow. That’s the opposite of generating power, and Patrick is promoting the device as generating power to replace fossil fuiels
Patrick seems to be suggesting some sort of natural venturi effect is created either by the existence of the gulfstream itself or during some sort of dramatic weather event. However, has not described where and when this natural venturi is formed nor explained how his pipe network is positioned to take advantage of the effect.
Patrick
You are describing the physics associated with a measurement device called a “pitot probe”; specifically, you are describing the “stagnation tap” portion of the probe. See Wikipedia.
The water impinging the straw opening will stagnate, that is reach 0 velocity. The local pressure at the straw opening will be larger than hydrostatic. This will elevate the water in the straw. However, if you make your straw long enough, what you will find is that if you hold your straw in a fixed position, the elevation of water in the straw will quickly come to a constant level. Water will not flow up the stagnation tube and create a perpetually operating fountain.
I, and many other people, have used pitot-tubes and stagnation tubes many times.
For equal area exit and entrance as shown in your figure, the pressure force acting at the bottom opening of the pipe is larger than the pressure force at the top. However, to drive any flow, it must be even larger than it is. It must be larger expected based on hydrostatic pressure differential.
You need to show why the pressure difference across the entrance and exit will be larger than hydrostatic. If you are going to say “venturi” effect, you need to explain how this venturi effect is to arise at the exit of the pipe. I can think of some teensie-beensie effects that could result in very small amounts of flow on average. These effects are so small one would rarely discuss them in an introductory class on fluid mechanics because they would just confuse students. The water impinging on the bottom of the pipe simply will not result in flow.
Patrick
What makes you think streamline are not curved when you blow rapidly across the top of the straw? But
a) your sketch shows the water flowing parallel to, not across, the exit and
b) Given the velocities on your sketch, the effect you are describing would be very small even if you oriented your exit to take advantage of reduction that happens when water flows over the top of a straw submerged in water
c) what makes you think curved streamlines aren’t involved when you place your lips very close to the top of a straw and blow sharply? You need to be cafeful to mistake the small vena-contracta at the exhaust of many pipes with what happens a straw is placed in a large stream with a uniform velocity. (For vena contracta, see wikipedia.
Lucia,
You have the patience of Job.
The phrase “pipe dream” never seemed so appropriate….
This is TANSTAAFL to a ‘t’.
It cannot work.
Water does not flow the way you claim it does.
This reminds of another person I ran across on the internet many years ago who beleived he could use compressed air to lift a sleek space craft design into orbit.
This reminds me of my beginnings in an environmental organization (long gone) that focused on bringing life back to some of our major rivers. The problem for many species were those areas, where the rivers had been staightened in order to accomodate shipping which caused some species to not make it up-river any more because of the increased flow velocity. So we sank a bunch of gutter pipes parallel to the flow on the riverbed, because water flowed considerably slower through the pipes than the surrounding water. I’d assume, that the gulfstream will be no different.
I think the misunderstanding is based on camparisons with things like upwind power plants, where a relatively tiny differnce in pressure generates fast flows in narrowing, long tube-constructions but they only work, because of large areas where the airflow is restricted and the pressure difference is focused on a single point. With the gulfstrem, this would only work if you’d build a huge dike thraight through the atlantic and attach your anti-cyclone pipe to an opening in that. With just the pipe, water will fow mostly around it because the flow-resistance is higher in the pipe than anywhere around it.
“a) your sketch shows the water flowing parallel to, not across”
It does not matter a more negative presuure will still result since the water is still rushing past the exit!.
“You need to show why the pressure difference across the entrance and exit will be larger than hydrostatic.”
Because of the 6mph force the gulfstream exerts at both ends of the tunnel! Simple.
bobberger
Same physics apply to pipes sunk in the gulfstream and in rivers.
Yes. Unless there is some fairly unusual situation, water will mostly flow around the tunnel contraption illustrated by cyclonebuster.
One can engineer some clever systems to use venturi effects, density differences, air coming out of solution and other phenomena to lift water. These things don’t seem to be engineered into Cyclone’s system.
Patrick Cyclonebuster
This is wrong in a very simple way.
The 6 mph velocity gulfstream will exert no force above local hydrostic pressure on the inlet unless the velocity in the pipe is lower than 6mph. The 6 mph velocity gulfstream at the top of the pipe will exert practically no force above hydrostatic. There are some teenie-tiny, eensie-beensie effects we could discuss, but they would not be sufficient to suck water through that long tunnel.
Patrick Cyclonebuster
Because of the 6mph force the gulfstream exerts at both ends of the tunnel! Simple.
“This is wrong in a very simple way.
The 6 mph velocity gulfstream will exert no force above local hydrostic pressure on the inlet unless the velocity in the pipe is lower than 6mph. The 6 mph velocity gulfstream will exert practically no force above hydrostatic. There are some teenie-tiny, eensie-beensie effects we could discuss, but they would not be sufficient to suck water through that long tunnel.”
If the gulfstream was static I would say you are correct but since the gulfstream is not static and is flowing then you are incorrect.
“The 6 mph velocity gulfstream will exert no force above local hydrostic pressure on the inlet unless the velocity in the pipe is lower than 6mph. The 6 mph velocity gulfstream will exert practically no force above hydrostatic. There are some teenie-tiny, eensie-beensie effects we could discuss, but they would not be sufficient to suck water through that long tunnel.”
What do you think the tunnel is floating along with the gulfstream it is not. It is anchored to the sea bed. So yes the tunnels is traveling zero MPH.
p cyclone,
You neglect the impact of pipe friction. Water only lifts itself when its momentum is great, and it meets something like a rock.
Think of a rapids. Water, even in extreme rapids, is not lifting up much or far.
And this is not even addressing the implications of messing with basic parts of the heat engine, even if your device could work.
Energy is tough to capture, tough to tame, and tough to get useful work out of.
p cyclone,
You neglect the impact of pipe friction. Water only lifts itself when its momentum is great, and it meets something like a rock.
Think of a rapids. Water, even in extreme rapids, is not lifting up much or far.
And this is not even addressing the implications of messing with basic parts of the heat engine, even if your device could work.
Energy is tough to capture, tough to tame, and tough to get useful work out of.
Trust me when I tell you this. The momentum of the water water in the Gulfstream is huge and the tunnels are like that stationary rock you describe.
p cyclone,
You neglect the impact of pipe friction. Water only lifts itself when its momentum is great, and it meets something like a rock.
Think of a rapids. Water, even in extreme rapids, is not lifting up much or far.
And this is not even addressing the implications of messing with basic parts of the heat engine, even if your device could work.
Energy is tough to capture, tough to tame, and tough to get useful work out of.
Trust me when I tell you this .The momentum of the water in the gulfstream is huge and the tunnels are stationary like rocks you describe.
This is still going on? 😀
Oliver–
I’m sure Patrick is pleased as punch to have a blogger finally discuss his cyclone busting! 🙂
BTW they also bust floods,drought,severe weather and tornadoes if we want them to all by regulation of SSTs which in turn will regulate climate.
Patrick cyclone,
It is clear you are very excited about this.
I wish you well.
Everyone on Earth should be excited about this!
Patrick,
If this worked at all, you should be able to construct a working model with just a tube and a flowing source of water. (Read: Creek/river/wading pool with hose.)
.
Getting a -little- lift isn’t a problem. Getting the kind of lift you’re talking about would require damming the entire creek and ‘forcing’ the water through the tube.
.
You’re ignoring the energy required -to-lift-the-water-. It seems weird, because you’re already underwater. And because it is happening in a completely boring section of pipe.
.
But it isn’t even a Second Law violation, you’re going straight for a First Law of Thermo violation.
I already did it in a boat traveling at 6mph the water came out the top of the pipe once this happened I knew the opposite was true.
> “I already did it in a boat traveling at 6mph the water came out the top of the pipe once this happened I knew the opposite was true.”
How did you simulate the different velocities (faster near the surface, slower at the lower inlet) from a moving boat???
I did it from near the surface.
From below the effect would be less but I don’t know by how much but I bet it would still work.
Patrick Cyclonebuster–
You need to document this with photos and measurements.
No need to the hurricane center already told me the Idea can weaken a hurricane thats good enough for me. Is that not not good enough for you?
Patrick–
The hurricane center has not told me or the world that your gizmo as designed could weaken a hurricane. They told you something in answer to some question you asked.
So, no. You telling me “the idea” can weaken a hurricane is not enough to convince me that any remotely significant amount of cold sea water will flow up the included pipe in your contraption.
> “…I bet …”
I’m game. How much?
So you put a pipe over the side of a motorboat with the forward end in the water and the back end out, and water came out the top when you drove your motorboat around?
And this will….produce energy?
How about if I bet you a whopper, one large coke and a large fry?
oliver (Comment#14671)
June 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
So you put a pipe over the side of a motorboat with the forward end in the water and the back end out, and water came out the top when you drove your motorboat around?
And this will….produce energy?
Yes the motorboat simulated the gulfstreams speed.
Patrick–
Repeat the experiment. Take photos, measurements etc. Then we can all see what you think you saw.
I also hope that, for the documentary film, patrick will be able to stabilize the forward progress of his motorboat so that the pipe inlet sees the steady flow he think’s it’s seeing.
I repeated it numerous times.
All with same results. I think you guys are jerking my chain here!
Zeke Hausfather (Comment#14574)
June 15th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Hey, can’t be a bigger waste of money than OTEC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…..conversion
:-p
It can also be combined to work with OTEC making it more effiecient.
Patrick, Lucia
A few thoughts form a scientist with many years experience working with wind tunnels.
Firstly, I noticed many years ago that smoke is drawn into the tunnel from outside when the air is moving and this is more noticeable in areas where the flow is constricted to accelerate it such as in a Venturi. This is consistent with Bernoulli’s equation since the rapid movement of the air reduces the static pressure along the stream lines.
Some of the commentators on this blog topic are suggesting that you are describing a perpetual motion machine. This may not be the case as I suspect that if fluid is drawn up your vertical tube by the pressure differential you will effectively be harvesting the energy required to lift the column of water by slowing down the huge mass of the Gulfstream by a minuscule amount.
On the other hand I expect that the fairly low velocity of the Gulfstream, the density differential of the water at both ends of the tube and the length of the tube will conspire to produce a very low volumetric flow rate up the tube.
The comments about pipe friction factor are only relevant if you manage to get the water to flow up your tube in the first place.
Do you have any documented evidence of this working?
I tried to explain myself the best thatI I can. Does anyone here see things as I do on this? I guess it doesn’t get any more simple than F1 Tunnel inlet > F2 Tunnel outlet. If this is true then flow must occur AND STAGNATION CAN NOT EXIST.
EdBhoy,
Nothing mathmatical yet because I have not determined what size to use yet. But one professor at FIU did do some calculations for me Hugh Willoughby is his name and he determined 20,000 tuneels could do the trick. I want to use bigger tunnels and have 1020 of them!
Forgive me for my bad spelling. But trust me this guy Hugh is a brain!
BTW they can also restore the Arctic Ice and restore the worlds glaciers!
I am back >sigh<.
Patrick, I do not believe that dragging a pipe manifold through the water is the same as fixing the manifold in place and having current push itself through by way of clever venturis and pipe fitting, and then getting a model turbine to do useful work.
Have you been out to the Gulf Stream? Do you know how successful the Gulf Stream is at destroying human built stuff? Do you know how powerful even a weak hurricane is, in comparison to a platform built by design to be low in the water?
Have you read up on tidal power generation and how difficult that has been? The ocean is a very corrosive, aggressive environment that destroys equipment with nearly 100% success.
http://www.beyondfossilfuel.com/hydroelectric/rick_dickson.html
The corrosion factor I have already thought out. It can be prevented by cathodic protection as modern day power plants have these systems in place and let me tell you from experience they work very well thank you.
Patrick cyclone,
You are clearly excited about your idea, but you have not, from what is seen here so far, defined it very clearly.
Myself excepted, there are people posting here with very specific, very powerful experience regarding the flow of fluids.
I urge you to find out how the energy of a water flow can be captured by studying and experimenting. Your excitement could lead you to great things. But think of the excitement as a muscle: Properly developed it can do impressive things. Balance the excitement with hard knowledge and facts and experience.
From: willough@fiu.edu [mailto:willough@fiu.edu]
>Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:13 PM
>To: Pat McNulty
>Subject: Re: Scoops( Under water Tunnels)
>Hugh,
>I bet those tunnels are cost effective now???? ANY THOUGHTS?
As I wrote earlier, the loop current is hundreds of kilometers across and its position varies greatly from year to year. What makes the scoops not completely nuts as a proposal is the narrowness and fixed position of the Gulf Stream in the Straits and off Florida’s SE coast. In terms of climatology, Greater Miami is the most vulnerable major city in the US. Only Miami has the configuration of a deep “western boundary” current directly offshore. Thus this scheme, if it proves feasible, would work only for Miami and only for Andrew-like storms. The city would remain vulnerable to late season storms, which approach from the SW, like WILMA
hew
Unfortunately there is a dearth of models capable of testing such a
hypothesis. The operational models are coupled to the ocean in a 1-D
sense eliminating any advection in the ocean. Research models are coming
along that could be used to look at 3-D interactions, but they are so
new I am not sure that you could be sure the results was caused by the
changes you induce or by other issues the new models have not been
tested for yet. The big challenge is the ocean modeling (there are some
good research ocean models, but the issue of forcing in a hurricane
environment is not completely understood yet – spray, wave breaking,
etc), and then the coupling of it to the atmosphere to get the
appropriate feedback. We are working on that for the next generation
operational models, but it still a work in progress. I think in a few
years we may have such a tool ready to test your idea in a credible manner.
Stackgenerator wrote:
> I agree with you. Whom may you suggest I get in contact with about
> testing some models?? Thanks Frank!!
> —– Original Message —– From: “Frank Marks”
> To: “Stackgenerator”
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: TUNNEL IDEA??
Patrick Cyclonebuster–
Those two emails sound as if Hugh doesn’t think your idea is promising. Why do you think otherwise? Also, he’s not discussing the basic pipe flow issue: Will these tubes result in any measurable flow? He seems to have his mind on the other idea: Assuming the pipe deliver flow, could they bust a cyclone.
For your idea to work you need a) the pipes to deliver flow, b) the flow to generate power and c) the flow to reduce cyclones.
I sympathize that you think people are cranking your chain by asking you to demonstrate your idea could possibly work. But, on paper, it doesn’t sound promising. So, you need to not only convince yourself but others. That means you need to file these boat experiments, show us dimensions and explain the geometry. What you have explained so far is very fuzzy and simply does not appear promising. Your explanations of why it seems to work all appear to be based on flows that have little in common with your design installation.
Of course, we could all be wrong. But if so, you are going to have to do the work and show the proofs that this thing could possibly work.
Many of us are engineers.That’s pretty much the the work of invention goes: You take movies of your experiment with your boat going 6 mph. You explain the geometry. You show how this thing is to be installed in the ocean and demonstrate why it should work as you envision it.
I can’t believe this thread has gone on so long. I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t think Patrick is serious about his idea, rather just joking around.
Forgive me for my bad spelling. But trust me this guy Hugh is a brain!
BTW they can also restore the Arctic Ice and restore the worlds glaciers!
All with same results. I think you guys are jerking my chain here!
MikeN–
Interesting theory. Maybe Patrick is just cranking eveyrone’s chain. If so, he started a long time ago!
I already did all that with Hugh and Frank. They used an example of 20,000 tunnels placed in various points in the Gulfstream. I want them to be placed across the entire width of the 40 mile wide gulfstream. I think hugh had a crossection of 20×20 feet each.
I want crossections of 200 feet for a total of 1020 tunnels placed across the 40 mile wide gulfstream. These 1020 tunnels should provide around 13 trillion joules of pure clean hydroelectrical power every 6 seconds 24/7/365.
Patrick C,
The problem is, and it is getting worse with your every post, is that you seem to have not grasp of the technical aspects of this:
What meaterial?
How to place it in the stream?
What impact on the Stream would it have if it could possibly work? If the GS is disrupted, do you have any idea of the implications?
Can you demonstrate that a manifold as you describe could be placed in a stationary fashion in a current and get the water to move in anything like you describe?
What would the math of this thing look like? What equations can you show that will support your contention?
I suggest you give serious, specific answers to these and other questions you have been asked here.
And simply saying you have it worked out because you spoke with someone is not an answer. And claiming that this will solve hurricanes, AGW or Arctic ice is not an answer either. Show why, in numbers.
Making water go where it does not want to go is very difficult to accomplish. Moving enough water to impact a hurricane is a very serious amount of water.
Show us with specifics how it could be done. You have been treated with a great deal of kindness and patience here. Do not misinterpret that as naivete or ignorance.
Enough to supply the USA with electrical power many times over! 3.050 Million Megawatts!
Since you need volume to get your answer, I made the assumption that the water is also 100 ft long. Kinetic Energy equals (1/2)m*v^2 so we got .5*299,025,900,000kg*(8.941 m/s)^2 = 149,512,950,000kg*79.941(m^2/s^2) = 11,952,214,735,950 joules.
BTW, thats for the entire 100 ft. So over the 100 ft, your 100 ft tall and 20 mile wide wall of water exerts nearly 12 trillion joules. If you want watts find out how long it took to go that 100 ft in seconds and devide the joules by that time. Then you have joules/second which equals watts. And watts can easily be converted into mega watts.
The above is for 100 foot wide x 100 foot wide tunnel with a 100 foot long impellar x 25 foot diameter.
I want 200 x 200 so the joules/sec also go up x 4.
Part of the Gulf Stream, the Loop Current is a warm ocean current in the Gulf of Mexico that flows northward between Cuba and the Yucatán peninsula, moves north into the Gulf of Mexico, loops west and south before exiting to the east through the Florida Straits.
A related feature is an area of warm water called an “Eddy” or “Loop Current ring” that separates from the Loop Current, somewhat randomly. These rings then drift to the west at speeds of about 5 cm/s (0.18 km/h or 0.11 mph) and bump into the coast of Texas or Mexico.
Around 1970, it was believed that the Loop Current exhibited an annual cycle in which the Loop feature extended farther to the north during the summer. Further study over the past few decades, however, has shown that the extension to the north (and the shedding of eddies) does not have a significant annual cycle.
The Loop Current and its eddies may be detected by measuring sea surface level. Sea surface level of both the Eddies and the Loop on September 21, 2005 was up to 60 cm (24 in) higher than surrounding water, indicating a deep area of warm water beneath them.[1] On that day, Hurricane Rita passed over the Loop current and intensified into a Category 5 storm with the help of the warm water.
In the Gulf of Mexico, the deepest areas of warm water are associated with the Loop Current and the rings of current that have separated from the Loop Current are commonly called Loop Current eddies. The warm waters of the Loop Current and its associated eddies provide more energy to hurricanes and allow them to intensify.
The turbulent environment of hurricanes pulls up water from beneath the surface, often upwelling cooler water. Stronger hurricanes upwell deeper water. If the water in the lower levels is significantly cooler, the water will limit the hurricane’s ability to strengthen, and may even cause it to weaken. But if the water is still warm at lower depths, then water being pulled to the surface remains warm, and the hurricane can increase in intensity if other atmospheric conditions are also conducive to strengthening. Meteorologists look for areas of deep warm water of at least 26 degrees Celsius (79°F). A continuous supply of warm water is one of several critical factors in enabling hurricanes to intensify beyond the initial level of a major hurricane (Category 3).
When a hurricane is traveling quickly over warm sea surface temperatures (SSTs), intensity might be maintained despite upwelling because the hurricane moves on before the cooler water impacts the hurricane.
An example of how deep warm water, including the Loop Current, can allow a hurricane to strengthen, if other conditions are also favorable, is Hurricane Camille, which made landfall on the Mississippi Gulf Coast in August 1969. Camille formed in the deep warm waters of the Caribbean, which enabled it to rapidly intensify into a Category 3 hurricane in one day. It rounded the western tip of Cuba, and its path took it directly over the Loop Current, all the way north towards the coast, during which time the rapid intensification continued. Camille became a Category 5 hurricane, with an intensity rarely seen, and extremely high winds that were maintained until landfall (190 mph / 305 km/h sustained winds were estimated to have occurred in a very small area to the right of the eye).
In 1980, Hurricane Allen strengthened to a Category 5 hurricane while moving over the Loop Current, but it weakened before landfall in Texas.
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita both greatly increased in strength when they passed over the warmer waters of the Loop Current. Hurricane Wilma of 2005 was expected to make its Florida landfall as a Category 2 hurricane, but after encountering the southeastern portion of the Loop Current, it reached the Florida coast as a Category 3 instead. [1]
In 2008, Hurricane Gustav transited the Loop Current, but due to the current’s temperature (then only in the high 80’s-degrees-F) and truncated size (extending only halfway from Cuba to Louisiana, with cooler water in-between its tip and the Louisiana coast) the storm remained a Category 3 hurricane instead of increasing strength as it passed over the current.[2][3]
Before devastating Homestead, Florida, 1992’s Hurricane Andrew briefly touched the Loop Current and made landfall as a Category 5. Hurricane Opal crossed a Loop Current eddy and went from a Category 1 to a Category 4 in 14 hours. Hurricane Ivan rode the Loop Current twice in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_Current
Patrick, If your theory is correct, why doesn’t water flow up and over a dam?
Genghis,
This is clearly no ordinary dam!
Because the water behind the dam is pretty much stationary.
No the water flowing towards a dam is not stationary. Not at least until it gets close to the dam anyway, and that is the problem with your tubes. The water simply isn’t going to lift itself up and over the dam : )
What if the dam is underwater like the tunnels are?
Don’t think of this like an ordinary river—this is the Gulf Stream we’re talking about… Have you ever heard of the heat flux from any mere mortal river fueling a hurricane? We’re talking about 30–100 Sv of pure buoyant goodness here, don’t let yourself get confused by the physics.
Lots of energy in that gulfstream shame to let it go to waste 24/7/365.
If the dam is underwater, then it is simply an obstruction that diverts and slows the flow. Exactly the same as your pipe.
But it still goes over the dam right?
Yes but there is no lifting done. Can you tell by the surface of a lake what the contour of the bottom is?
It is an obstruction for sure but a temporary one once it is past the tunnel the coriolis force will speed it back up.
Patrick: perhaps if you could explain the conceptual difference between flow over a dam sill and stratified flow over blocking topography, then the latest subthread could progress more quickly!
Genghis (Comment#14723) June 16th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
In a river (with flow) actually you can sometimes… 😀 but this has severe limitations for Patrick’s concept.
No lifting would be done if the gulfstream was stationary.Since the gulfstream has velocity there is lift and differential of pressure across the whole system provides that lift.
Also the larger the tunnel openings the less friction there is.
Oliver, as a White water kayaker I have first hand experience that what you say is true : )
Patrick, The water will simply flow around the tube. Water for some odd reason likes to take the path of least resistance.
I know just like electricity. But not all of it will go around.
“I know just like electricity. But not all of it will go around.”
The thing is, as engineers we can -calculate- how much water will go around. And through, along with stress on the pipe, etc.
.
If you’re talking about essentially damming the entire Gulf Stream to force the water into your pipes – that’s one set of catastrophic problems.
.
If you’re talking about fundamentally just a tube, or a tube with a sane funnel, we can calculate that too. That seems closer to what you’re describing.
.
The part you’re still missing is the change from the kinetic energy of water in motion to potential energy.
.
Yes, when you put an inclined small pipe into a moving flow, water will go up the tube somewhat. It is moving from an area of high pressure (the inlet) to an area of low pressure (the air), it is also -going-up-an-incline-. If the pipe is a uniform diameter, the water coming out is going -slower- than the water going past the inlet.
.
If you have a nozzle on the exit, you can indeed get the exiting water to be going faster than the flow and the incoming water. But. The price you’ve paid for increasing the speed is a decrease in the volumetric flow rate. (That is, the flow in liters per second instead of meters per second.) You can even use that nozzle to make a little fountain or whatever. But you can calculate a solid result for how high the water will fountain.
.
You’ve got the first part of the physical demonstration figured out if you’ve run your model from a boat at about six miles per hour. The -crucial- piece, the piece people are having a problem with is essentially just the length of your pipe. Your response is “Water comes out! Victory!” Good. But that isn’t a scale representation – the boat needs to be going a lot slower than 6mph. The ratio of ‘desired pipe size’ to ‘test pipe size’ should be the same as ‘6 mph’ to ‘test speed.’ And then think about how -far- up the water needs to be lifted. Pick whatever angle of attack you like. Figure out how many ‘pipe diameters’ you can get the water to be lifted at your test velocity.
.
But the calculations you’re describing are treating the pipe as a black box. That is, you’re assuming IN=OUT. That’s something that -will- be true here. But it just fundamentally doesn’t mean that putting the black box in a flow will force that same flow out the far end. Gravity is still operational, and the water you are lifting is pushing back the other way. At some point you do indeed reach the stagnation you claimed would not happen.
.
The is practically rule number one about pumps. A pump is a device that generates a flow andor pressure in a fluid. I have a sump pump that you can hook to a garden hose. When you run it while the hose is lying flat, the pump sucks up three gallons a minute. Three gallons a minute come out the far end of the hose. IN=OUT, and (ignoring wall losses) a black box is a fine way to model the entire hose.
.
But. Like most pumps, it has a marking “Head Pressure.” This one says twelve feet. When I hold the hose -vertically-, the outlet exceeds the twelve foot head. This means I get -no-flow-. I’m still getting IN=OUT, but now IN happens to be zero because I’m pushing back against the pumps so hard I have stagnation. The pump is still pushing just as forcefully – and will overheat if left that way. It doesn’t actually matter what angle I hold it at, or what (non-kinking) contortions the hose does. If the outlet is twelve feet higher than the pump, I get zero flow.
.
The same situation happens in free-flows. You can indeed have an open pipe facing a swift flow and not have a net flow inside the pipe. Easily – so long as the pipe is long enough to hold a high enough column of water to oppose the ‘head pressure’ – the pressure exerted by the flow on the inlet.
.
Part of the incredulity is what happens when you start trying to fix the stagnation. One way is to just start increasing the size of the inlet. Doubling the size of the inlet gets you a substantially higher lift. (The surface area of the inlet is -all- acted upon by the pressure of the flowing water.)
.
But you need a -lot- of lift. It suddenly isn’t something semi-plausible like a supertanker-sized collection of tubes. You’re suddenly on a geo-engineering project that dwarfs the Asswan or the Yangtze dams – just to build enough pressure to lift the water far enough to be useful. You’re suddenly not ‘skimming extra energy’ from the Gulf Stream – but instead dragging it to a halt.
.
The turbines are better off completely separate from the tubes.
.
“The turbines are better off completely separate from the tubes.”
If that is all you did with them perhaps. But the intention of them is to regulate climate by placing them in and out of cooling phase and or non-cooling phase determined by computer modeling.If we just have the turbines we loose the ability to regulate SSTs as much and therefore the climate.
“If the pipe is a uniform diameter, the water coming out is going -slower- than the water going past the inlet.”
Correct the verticle rise in the tunnel will be proportional to the horizontal flow of water outside of the tunnel. Mixing ratio.
We need to examine how the now cooler water exits at the top and free falls on top of the warm water below it mixing it.
Patrick C,
You are filibustering. Go get some facts, not rationalizations. Show that any water that gets in your manifold will be able to do the work of turning a turbine, much less get enough lift to actually mix in any meaningful way.
And show us how moving enough water to impact a hurricane will not also contaminate the over all flow of the Gulf Stream, and what that contamination would imply for the areas depending on the Gulf Stream’s heat.
Don’t argue it, show it. The google is a big place, full of data. Go collect some.
Coriolis force prevents disrutpion of the Gulfstream! It is the driving force of ocean currents.
SEE: Surface Ocean Currents
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/05currents3.html
Patrick–
You aren’t telling people dimensions. You aren’t really describing how this is installed. You are claiming water will flow up providing totally incomplete descriptions of the phenomenology of pipe flow. You refer to experiments you did, but which you did not document and won’t show people. So, there is no way for us to know how the experiment you did corresponds to the operation of your tunnels. There could be differences in implementation that you think don’t matter but which are crucial to operation. You tell us that Hugh and Frank did some calculations on something, but we don’t know what problem they looked at.
So, in short, you are claiming something about a vaguely designed tunnel will do something splendid but keeping the physical description vague and withholding all evidence the thing could work. Withholding the description or proof of concept demonstrations from the public might be necessary if you are planning a patent (as revealing all publicly would screw things up legally.) But in that case, a) you shouldn’t be discussing it on the web and b) you can’t expect those who have not been given adequate descriptions to jump on your bandwagon and get all excited about your device.
I wish you well. But so far, I’m not convinced enough water can flow up your tunnels to result in any sort of power generation.
I’ll leave the thread open because I think people are enjoying themselves. But, I’m going to bow out. Good luck with your project.
I don’t know what formulas or equations Hugh and Frank used. All I know is the letter they sent me about the tunnels and how they could weaken a hurricane like Andrew. That statement by istself is pretty significant! I do know he used 20,000 scoops! He refered to them as scoops not tunnels
In fact Frank Marks current director at HRD told me they would also be advecting as the water rushed out and some engineering would need to be in place to stop the advecting.
Explain what this means then? Advection means flow is exiting the tunnels?
Frank Marks points out computers don’t even model advection rates yet. So they can’t model the advection the tunnels create.
He says:
“The operational models are coupled to the ocean in a 1-D
sense eliminating any advection in the ocean.”
15. Vortex2 5:23 AM GMT on June 12, 2009
Cyclone, I really don’t know what to tell you about your tube system for regulating the gulf stream. It’s well beyond the scope of what we’re trying to do with the VORTEX2 project. Its a novel idea to be sure, but i suggest you try the climate blog by Dr. Ricky Rood, also a featured blog on wunderground. Sorry we can’t be of more help, and good luck!
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Vortex2/comment.html?entrynum=16
Tell you what. You guys/gals figure out at depth gravity will take over and not let the water flow upwards in the tunnels I have already done that. Let me know what you come up with.
“You guys/gals figure out at depth gravity will take over and not let the water flow upwards”
.
Gravity is -always- online on Earth. That doesn’t mean water can’t “flow upwards,” just that it is either losing energy or being acted upon by another force. Momentum isn’t a force, it is stored kinetic energy.
.
Patrick, if you took a working siphon, what happens when you lift the outlet? And why was it working in the first place?
Like the siphon energy is also conserved inside the tunnel!
Siphon Theory
Liquids can rise over the crest of a siphon because they are pushed by atmospheric pressure. Siphons must be started by filling them in one of a number of ways. After priming, atmospheric pressure acts on both ends of the siphon, but the longer leg carries a greater weight of liquid. Gravity then drains the liquid through the longer leg, and this maintains the low pressure that was established at the start. Capillary action can enhance the siphon and cavitation may modify the phenomenon and cause the siphon to ‘break’.[5].
Disregarding cavitation, once started, a siphon requires no additional energy to keep the liquid flowing up and out of the reservoir. The siphon will pull the liquid out of the reservoir until the level falls below the intake, allowing air or other surrounding gas to break the siphon, or until the outlet of the siphon equals the level of the reservoir, whichever comes first. Energy is conserved because the ultimate drain point is lower than the liquid level of the reservoir.
The maximum height of the crest is limited by atmospheric pressure, the density of the liquid, and its vapour pressure. When the pressure exerted by the weight of the liquid equals that of atmospheric pressure, a vacuum will form at the high point and the siphon effect will end. The liquid may boil briefly until the vacuum is filled with the liquid’s vapour pressure. For water at standard atmospheric pressure, the maximum siphon height is approximately 10 m (33 feet); for mercury it is 76 cm (30 inches).
Patrick C,
If you are depending on the siphon effect, you have some physical limitations to learn about and not just cut-n-paste.
You are limited to 10meters for a siphon to work.
You need much more than that for your vision to be real.
Please do not become dispondent. Study. Read. Listen.
You can do well. Most creative ideas do not work. Do not give up jsut because this idea cannot and will not work.
So, why does it STOP if you raise the outlet higher than the inlet?
.
The pressure at the inlet is identical. The pressure at the outlet is essentially identical. And the energy is conserved.
.
Why does the -flow- stop?
hunter,
Not relying at the siphon effect just the pressure differential and energy being conserved in the tunnel.
So, why does it STOP if you raise the outlet higher than the inlet?
.
The pressure at the inlet is identical. The pressure at the outlet is essentially identical. And the energy is conserved.
.
Why does the -flow- stop?
Would it stop if the water was flowing towards the inlet and past the outlet?
Patrick Cyclonebuster
Frictional effects cause mechanical energy to degrade to heat inside the tunnel. These are large if your tunnel is long relative to its diameter.
Frictional effects also cause mechanical energy to degrade to heat due to flow development at the inlet and due to any mis-match in velocity at the exit. If you have a tunnel, you have an inlet. So, you can’t get around these by making the tunnel larger in diameter.
There are also frictional effects associated with your venturi and the two elbows in your system.
“Frictional effects cause mechanical energy to degrade to heat inside the tunnel. These are large if your tunnel is long relative to its diameter.”
It is not the ratio is about 5:1.
Patrick,
With a length/diameter scale of 5:1 for the main pipe, you can hardly view it as a laminar pipe flow at all.Why not simplify your model to include only the inclined pipe?
In the interests of getting the scales right, do you want to throw out some estimates of the actual sizes and velocities you expect to be dealing with here?
“There are also frictional effects associated with your venturi and the two elbows in your system.”
frictional losses of course. What piping system doesn’t have them?
As for the venturi I am sacrificing frictional losses for increase in velocity across the turbine which we need to make the turbine/generator have more output/load.
Yeah, but the frictional effects are a rounding error compared to lifting the water.
.
Patrick, please consider -just- the pipe. If you can lift the water as described, you’ll have a long list of opportunities to generate energy from the flow.
.
I’ve got a siphon, high pressure and low flow at the inlet, low pressure and exactly equal flow at the outlet.
.
Why does the flow stop when I raise the outlet? It has nothing to significant to do with friction – the same tube worked fine as a normal siphon.
oliver (Comment#14760)
June 17th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Patrick,
With a length/diameter scale of 5:1 for the main pipe, you can hardly view it as a laminar pipe flow at all.Why not simplify your model to include only the inclined pipe?
In the interests of getting the scales right, do you want to throw out some estimates of the actual sizes and velocities you expect to be dealing with here?
I am looking for the inlet to be 200 feet by 200 feet. It needs to go about +/-1000 feet down to tap into the 50 degree water located there. The outlet has the same dimensions. I want the inlet and outlet to taper down to a round pipe that equals the same area of the 200 foot by 200ft inlet and outlet to allow the gulfstream to flow around it better. The gulfstream flows to North at about 6mph. so you have to use that figure at both ends of the tunnel no just the inlet. The equipment for power generation and tunnel bouyancy must be located near the surface for easy access for maintenance. The traveling screen must be placed between the shunt valve and the turbine this also allows for easy maintenance.
Patrick,
this statement of yours, “Not relying at the siphon effect just the pressure differential and energy being conserved in the tunnel.” makes no sense.
We can go smaller but that means we nead more of them to effect a hurricane.
The tunnel exit is actually a Venturi Siphon
A venturi siphon, also known as an eductor, is essentially a venturi which is designed to greatly speed up the fluid flowing in a pipe such that an inlet port located at the throat of the venturi can be used to siphon another fluid. See pressure head. The low pressure at the throat of the venturi is called a siphon when a second fluid is introduced, or an aspirator when the fluid is air.
So the simplest possible description of the crucial piece is a 34m diameter pipe at a ten percent slope over a 300m rise in a 2.6m/s flow. (So, 3km long.)
.
A 650-to-1 scale model is a two inch pipe that’s 4.6 meters long placed with the outlet 0.46m higher than the inlet in a 0.004m/s flow.
.
A shorter pipe of the same diameter and angle of attack would be a lot handier to perform physical experiments. The longer length would be the convincing experiment.
.
Sincere best wishes.
What do you suspect would happen with these dimensions?
Ahh.. A design detail that drastically affects any computations.
The word “tunnel” is generally used for something fairly long relative to its length. These seem to fall between an “underpass” and a “tunnel”.
Your venturi will neck down to what? How big is this turbine?
So the simplest possible description of the crucial piece is a 34m diameter pipe at a ten percent slope over a 300m rise in a 2.6m/s flow. (So, 3km long.)
.
A 650-to-1 scale model is a two inch pipe that’s 4.6 meters long placed with the outlet 0.46m higher than the inlet in a 0.004m/s flow.
.
A shorter pipe of the same diameter and angle of attack would be a lot handier to perform physical experiments. The longer length would be the convincing experiment.
My model has a 45 degree slope. This shortend it up so I can handle it better.
Your venturi will neck down to what? How big is this turbine?
100 feet diameter. With an almost 100 foot diameter Achemedes screw turbine. I want it to be 100 foot long also to get more Ke from the stream.
22/Archimedes-screw_one-screw-threads_with-ball_3D-view_animated_small.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Archimedes-screw_one-screw-threads_with-ball_3D-view_animated_small.gif
Here is a picture of a large francis water turbine.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Water_turbine_grandcoulee.jpg/683px-Water_turbine_grandcoulee.jpg
Patrick:
You do understand that your experiment on the boat would require the boat moving at 0.004 meters/sec (0.009 miles/hr) not 6 miles per hour.
Yes it seemed to come up and out right away.
Patrick:
0.009 miles per hour is very, very slow. I think you are kidding your self.
Royal Sites,
You do realize the gulfstream is 6 mph!
Patrick:
You realize your boat experiment with 2″ pipe is a 650:1 scale which requires the flow to be 6 miles per hour scaled by 650. In other words 0.009 miles per hour.
They can cool an area of sea surface to 70 degrees 40 miles wide x 120 miles long in one day and 240 miles long in 2 days if the cool waters exit the tunnels at 5 mph. This will kill any hurricane that cross the path of the cooler waters and they can almost protect the whole East coast with just five days of operation.
Royal Sites (Comment#14789)
June 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Patrick:
You realize your boat experiment with 2″ pipe is a 650:1 scale which requires the flow to be 6 miles per hour scaled by 650. In other words 0.009 miles per hour.
Ok so what are you trying to tell me?
I forgot 400 feet deep also!
Patrick:
Your experiment with the boat was with the boat moving at 6 miles per hour which would mean at a 650:1 scale that the GS would flow at 650 * 6 (3900) miles per hour.
Royal Sites– You don’t scale velocity that way when testing. Normally, you match Reynolds number in scaled experiments.
I’m not concerned with the pipe Reynolds number though. I’m concerned that he hasn’t fully described his experiment. Did he include the venturi in his experimental model? Did it neck down to the diameter he intends? Did it widen at the rate he intends. Did he stick in anything to imitate the turbine? (Real venturi’s widen out at shallow angles for a reason.) How do we know the boat speed was steady? Etc. He pretty much tells us he did some sort of experiment, that it worked to his satisfaction and bingo, done!
LOL! We know that ain’t happening. Anyways, even if the gulsftream was traveling at .009 miles per hour across the whole submerged tunnel structure a differential of pressure would still set up across both openings and flow would still occur. Not as fast but it would still occur.
In other words the greater the differential pressure you get the greater velocity you get in this tunnel example.
Peaking anyones interest yet in them?
How did you get my images to post here? Pretty cool hey!
You all fight it out for awhile I’ll be back after I mow the yard and pick some blueberries from the backyard. Perhaps, you may discover something.
You know, I really wanted to kill two birds with one stone with this idea. I didn’t realize untill later I could refreeze the the North Arctic Ice cap and start another ice age with it if I left in cooling stage and kill all the birds. That is why they need to be computer modeled so we know how much cooling would be needed. They can end man made global warming rather quickly if we so desire.
Question for you Guys and Gals. Suppose we just use the top section of the tunnel to generate electrical power to pump up cooler waters from below to regulate Gulfstream SSTs in order to regulate climate? I can imagine something like this being used.
http://www.pontediarchimede.it/language_us/progetti_det.mvd?RECID=1&CAT=001&SUBCAT=&MODULO=Progetti_ENG&returnpages=&page_pd=p
http://www.bluenergy.com/technology.html
We would have to go much deeper to get to much cooler water though.
Patrick,
Show us that water would ever do what you claim it will do: Go into a manifold on its own momentum, climb a pipe a considerable distance, and still have the energy to do any useful work.
Especially show us that it would work over hundreds of feet.
Then show us that as part of the benefit after generating huge amounts of electricity, it would also regulate the climate.
How much power will it take to lift enough water to affect the climate, as you propose?
Don’t dodge, be specific.
ATMOSPHERIC pressure lifts it most of the way in the tube what do you mean hundreds of feet?
Actually atmospheric pressure pushes the water up the tube!
Example: Take an empty 1 inch diameter pipe 1000 feet long and on both ends install a 1 inch ball valve.Close both valves. Take one end and place it in the ocean to where the other end is just a few inches above the surface and the other end is now at ~1000 feet below the surface. Open the top valve. Nothing happens right because the bottom valve is still closed? Open the bottom ball valve with the long rope attached to it. What happens? What level does that water seek inside the pipe? You see, you don’t have to draw from 100s of feet. Atmsopheric pressure does most of the work for you.
Patrick, did you account for the amount of work needed to displace the 1000 ft column of water initially?
Now imagine the there is a 90 degree fitting at the bottom and the open valve is now facing the current. Lower the opening of the top valve to about a 1/4 inch above the surface. What happens? Water overflows out the top because of the extra pressure exerted from the 6mph gulfstream current opposing the opening. Now rotate the valve 180 degrees facing away from the current. What happens? The level falls below sea level. That is what creates the pressure differential across the whole tunnel because the tunnel is totally submerged below the surface.
oliver (Comment#14833)
June 18th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Patrick, did you account for the amount of work needed to displace the 1000 ft column of water initially?
Well if the pipe with all its fittings and the the air inside isn’t bouyant I am assuming it would sink.
Patrick, you aren’t going to believe anything but your own eyes.
.
The pipe you’ve described – backed up by the reasoning you’ve given – would be capable of far more than ‘just’ fixing global warming. If it worked exactly how and why you’ve described.
.
Even the most recent example should give you pause. The water in a pipe half in and half out of the water is going to be level with the water level of the bulk.
.
But. If your plan is going to work, describe how to calculate the level when the water -is-moving-. Why does it go to that height? Why not higher? Why can’t we use that exact technique to re-fill the existing dams we’ve already got?
Even the most recent example should give you pause. The water in a pipe half in and half out of the water is going to be level with the water level of the bulk.
If the pipe bouyant then force it to the level I described.
If the pipe isn’t bouyant then force it to the level I described.
Patrick C,
How high can atmospheric pressure lift water without assistance?
Sea level
sea level to 34 ft
Getting back to my example. Atmospheric pressure on the ocean surface forces the water back up the pipe.
The gulfstreams Ke forces the water above sea level.
Patrick–
Yes. If you put a pitot-static tap (aka, straw) with the bottom pointing into the flow, the water will rise above sea level and/ or flow. For 2m/s, you can create a standing column of water about V^2/(2g) = (2 m/s )^2/(2*9.8 m/s) ~ 20 cm. If the straw is shorter than that, you will create some flow– provided the top of the straw is *in air*.
The problem is that when you submerge the exit in flowing water, you create an entirely different boundary condition from that you see in air.
If water is flowing along the pipe and we assume the flow is inviscid, oddly enough, the streamlines close over the exit and create excess pressure there too. This exactly balances the stagnation pressure on the lower part of the pipe.
Now… this doesn’t exactly happen. Instead, since flow is viscous, the boundary layer will detach on the back of the pipe, and so, the pressure on that exit will be a little lower than at the base of the pipe and you’ll get some flow. BUT, not as much as for the air case.
Oddly enough figuring out the full solution is difficult in this situation.
The reason I would like you to describe your experiment is to find out precisely what geometry you did. Did you detect flow with the exit submerged deeply? If yes, how much flow?
It could not have been deep because the model I built is about 1.5 feet tall. and about 3 feet wide. With 2 inch pipeing.
“The problem is that when you submerge the exit in flowing water, you create an entirely different boundary condition from that you see in air.”
This can’t happen because the enrgy within the pipe is conserved the instant the force is applied to the inlet. Ke works instanty! The inlet is before the exit! The back end works as an educter and pulls the water out.
It is like you are pushing water in at the same time you are pulling water out.
The experiment I did was with the inlet end only. Flow just came out of the tube. From that I deduced what would happen with the back end.
Patrick,
You need to do it with the whole mock up submerged. You also need to shove restriction like the venturi you envision.
If your pipe diameter for the scale model is 2″ place top of your the mock up at least 20″ below the surface of the water.
Oddly, you don’t need to hold this vertically. For testing the thing I want to know, you could lay the entire thing in a horizontal plane.
If you are near a university, you could find out if someone has water tunnel. You might be able to do some flow visualization shooting ink into the inlet and watch. But you don’t need a flow tunnel. If you can find a river with nice clear water, you can probably do something. Take photos. We can show them.
Can’t a computer figure this out?
Patrick–
Maybe. Maybe if you paid someone, you could get them to run a model. I doubt anyone will do it for free. Also, this would not be an easy model because the boundary condition for the pipe flow is obtained from the model for flow outside the pipe, but that flow is affected by the amount of flow inside the pipe.
Since your the one interested in the project, you could just get in your boat, suspend your test rig, get a little ink and a squirter and check it out some fine summer day. That’s what all the engineers I know would do.
A little pipe glue and I am off! What do you expect to see?
I have some food coloring that should work.
patrick,
if you can provide us an engineering diagram and show us either video or the math to justify why this can generate a flow capable of powering turbines, i might be convinced to take a scale model down to our hydrolab and put it in a stratified flow to see what happens.
but it would be quite a breakthrough if it worked, since some the people around there have tried all kinds of ideas like this in their spare time.
Can your lab simulate velocities from 2-6 mph? The velocity should increase greatly within the venturi section of the tunnel because I have decreased that area by a factor of four for the turbine.During my next days off I plan to do the experiment and and get a few jpegs with mys out on the lake. I think my trolling motor may go that fast in high speed. If not I’ll try the big motor in almost idle and look at the speed guage to guage speed but it isn’t calibrated for sure.
Also if you flair the back end out the velocity would also increase around the edge and this should also help somewhat to lower the pressure in the pipe.
Oliver,
What lab you work at?
If you inject a little ink about 20″ upstream of the inlet, I expect to see at least some of it to around the pipe. The interesting thing will be to see how much goes in the pipe.
Ideally, if you can, use a syringe to inject along the axis of the pipe (20″ up stream), and then inject about 3/4″ to the right and 3/4″ to the left.
That way, we can see if the center ink goes in, but the “side” ink goes around. (If you need a picture, I can make one.)
Patrick–Everyone has different questions. For mine, you don’t need to go so fast. My first questions apply to just regular old unstratified constant density water. I’ll make a diagram. (I thought of an extra thing too. We can have you rig up a straw to act as a stagnation tap at the exit. That will help us estiamte the flow rate.
Patrick– I posted a sketch showing the experiment I would like you to do here. If you include the venturi, and even somesort of screw that is free to rotate in the venturi, I think the amount of flow you get will be small.
Patrick, you should Youtube any experiment you do.