 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / April 2007Giant pipelines of freshwater to parched lands
The Alaska Pipelines were built in '68, and they're regarded as a value-added engineering marvel. Every day they pump tons of oil, and they do so relatively efficiently. In the same region, there is a lot of freshwater. Also, diametrically opposite of Alaska is the Antarctic region. There are tons of freshwater here as well melting everyday, I would think. What are the possibilities of sending this water via pipelines to parched lands (with big populations and/or good soil)? Another criteria for a good benificiary place of water disposal is that it should not have a high altitude above sea level, since the water is going to be pumped from the sea level area, I would think. Some possible choices of transporting mass amounts of water are: 1. from Lake Baikal to the Gobi Desert. NOTE: Lake Baikal doesn't have much area, but its volume of freshwater is HUGE! 2. Caspian Sea to Israel/Palestine, where the soil is good, but the land is dry. 3. The melting mountain tops of Alaska to California, where the soil is great, and the population is high, but it's dry there. Good idea , but the Romans did it first using gravity. Maybe you could use solar energy pumps on the way to take the water from the arctic to the desert fields. The Alaska Pipelines were built in '68, and they're regarded as a value-added engineering marvel. Every day they pump tons of oil, and they do so relatively efficiently. In the same region, there is a lot of freshwater. Also, diametrically opposite of Alaska is the Antarctic region. There are tons of freshwater here as well melting everyday, I would think. What are the possibilities of sending this water via pipelines to parched lands (with big populations and/or good soil)? Another criteria for a good benificiary place of water disposal is that it should not have a high altitude above sea level, since the water is going to be pumped from the sea level area, I would think. Some possible choices of transporting mass amounts of water are: 1. from Lake Baikal to the Gobi Desert. NOTE: Lake Baikal doesn't have much area, but its volume of freshwater is HUGE! 2. Caspian Sea to Israel/Palestine, where the soil is good, but the land is dry. 3. The melting mountain tops of Alaska to California, where the soil is great, and the population is high, but it's dry there. > Good idea , but the Romans did it first using gravity. > Maybe you could use solar energy pumps on the way to take the water > from the arctic to the desert fields. Arghh... then the sun will evaporate the water, clouds will form over the solar power panels and we'll have to revert to fossil fuel to pump the water. That's climate change you are advocating. You'ld have to wrap the icebergs with plastic bags to keep the fresh water separate from the sea water. Bret Cahill In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote: > You'ld have to wrap the icebergs with plastic bags to keep the fresh > water separate from the sea water. > Bret Cahill What icebergs? He was talking about piping liquid water.  SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. I was referring to freshwater sources piped/pumped to parched lands which are *far* from freshwater sources. > I was referring to freshwater sources piped/pumped to parched lands > which are *far* from freshwater sources. Who's going to pay for this pipe ? Graham In sci.physics, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote on Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:40:42 +0000 <45A9982A.CF0D34AA@hotmail.com>: >> I was referring to freshwater sources piped/pumped to parched lands >> which are *far* from freshwater sources. > > Who's going to pay for this pipe ? Not to mention the pumps and the energy required to pump said water through said pipe? > Graham Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Of course you cant use oil energy to move water along. However free solar energy should do the trick. Btw nanosolar in California have said they have reduced the cost of solar TENFOLD by printing sheets of solar cells . If what is below is true , all our energy problems are solved for ever. http://www.nanosolar.com/ June 2006: Nanosolar secures $100,000,000 from leading investors. Nanosolar commences with its plans to build a 430MW solar cell factory. Nanosolar is founded to make solar electricity cells 10 times less expensive Highlight 2006: Nanosolar commits to building the world's largest thin-film solar cell factory. Additional financing is secured. Continued outdoor and accelerated indoor product durability testing is performed in order to meet and exceed stringent government certification standards Nanosolar is on track to make solar electricity: cost-efficient for ubiquitous deployment mass-produced on a global scale available in many versatile forms. Nanosolar has developed proprietary technology that makes it possible to simply roll-print solar cells that require only 1/100th as thick an absorber as a silicon-wafer cell (yet deliver similar performance and durability). Watch the CNN video. Our technology dramatically lowers the process cost and complexity involved in the production of thin-film solar cells and makes it possible to scale production very rapidly. The result sets the standard for the technology and products that make it possible to put A Solar Panel on Every Building™. PALO ALTO, California - December 12th, 2006 - Nanosolar Inc., a global leader in solar power innovation, today announced that it has selected manufacturing sites located in California and in Germany. With these two new sites, Nanosolar now has the capability to utilize up to 647,000 square feet for its cell and panel manufacturing as well as research and development and regional company headquarters. With its proprietary nanoparticle ink and fast roll-printing technology, Nanosolar owns the processes and designs to make solar electricity fundamentally less expensive. Nanosolar is presently building manufacturing operations for its breakthrough solar electricity technology and is on schedule to commence commercial production in 2007 > Of course you cant use oil energy to move water along. However > free solar energy should do the trick. Hey fuckhead! Do it, nobody is stopping you. One idea which even Jim cant rubbish , is black steel pipes coming out of the ocean at a steep angle to say 100 ft above sea level to be raised on stilts say 100ft inland. Water would evaporate into these steel pipes and rise to be collected in closed troughs at the other end.The troughs would slope gently inland a mile or so . Millions of famrs would go up in the deserts next to the oceans. > One idea which even Jim cant rubbish , is black steel pipes > coming out of the ocean at a steep angle to say 100 ft above sea level [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gently inland a mile or so . Millions of famrs would go up in the > deserts next to the oceans. Are you part of some Ministry of Silly Ideas? SignatureSaucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense theory" -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > One idea which even Jim cant rubbish , is black steel pipes > coming out of the ocean at a steep angle to say 100 ft above sea level [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gently inland a mile or so . Millions of famrs would go up in the > deserts next to the oceans. Good Lord ! That's possibly even stupider than usual for you Hashbrains. Graham > One idea which even Jim cant rubbish , is black steel pipes > coming out of the ocean at a steep angle to say 100 ft above sea level [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gently inland a mile or so . Millions of famrs would go up in the > deserts next to the oceans. Hey fuckhead! Do it, quit talking and get on with it. In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote: > One idea which even Jim cant rubbish , is black steel pipes > coming out of the ocean at a steep angle to say 100 ft above sea level [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gently inland a mile or so . Millions of famrs would go up in the > deserts next to the oceans. This is so ridiculous it isn't worth further comment other than you are an idiot. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > One idea which even Jim cant rubbish , is black steel pipes > coming out of the ocean at a steep angle to say 100 ft above sea level to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gently inland a mile or so . Millions of famrs would go up in the deserts > next to the oceans. Imagination is always a wonderful thing. . . But reality is often a bitch. Bill Ward In sci.physics, habshi <hi@anony> wrote on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:47:04 GMT <45aacca3.867296@news.clara.net>: > One idea which even Jim cant rubbish , is black steel pipes > coming out of the ocean at a steep angle to say 100 ft above sea level [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gently inland a mile or so . Millions of famrs would go up in the > deserts next to the oceans. An interesting idea but there are a lot of problems. If one starts with a liter of liquid water: [1] 2.26 megajoules will need to be expended to convert it to vapor. If one does this in a shallow pan 10m x 10m x 1cm covered by a transparent glass or plastic filter, one can evaporate a liter of water about every 22.6 seconds. Maybe. [2] That liter of water is 55.56 moles, and will expand to a volume of about 1.368 m^3 (assuming a temperature of 300 K, or 26.85 C). [3] An additional 300J is needed to lift it 100 feet. Given the heat of vaporization already expended this isn't much of a problem, though it would be interesting contemplating a one-way valving system and running the pipe up a mountainside. (For the amount of flow here, it's probably not worth the trouble.) [4] The pipe will have to be sufficiently warm in order to prevent premature condensation. By bolting on appropriate reflectors, this shouldn't be a major problem. [5] At some point further down, the water will have to condense. This might have to be done in a shady spot, and it is far from clear how easily one can dissipate the 2.26 megajoules of heat liberated per liter of condensed water. In a prior post, I've mentioned that one needs 4.055 * 10^9 m^3 of water per year in order to generate $1B/year worth of corn cropland. That's 128.5 m^3 per second, or 128500 liters per second. That's a collector 600 km^2 in size (assuming 12 hours of sunlight) and that assumes the other end actually can condense the water fast enough; presumably that will require a cooling system that is also about 600 km^2 in size. And then there's the issue of actually keeping the cooling system sufficiently cool so that the water actually does condense, as opposed to simply sitting in the pipe or wafting out as water vapor. One might immerse the end of the pipe into a shaded holding pond, but the pond will be heated by the condensing water, which will probably increase its *own* evaporation. Since the vapor pressure of water at 30C is about 31.8 mmHg, or 0.042 atm, the pressure differential in that pipe will be negligible. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux makes one use one's mind. Windows just messes with one's head. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Instead of steel better to have plastic with coating so that infra red rays are reflected back into the pipe .Also external solar concentrators can focus sunlight on to these pipes. Billions of gallons would evaporate and collected as fresh water.The sun pours out 4kw per sq meter in some of these areas !! One idea which even Jim cant rubbish , is glass pipes coming out of the ocean at a steep angle to say 100 ft above sea level to be raised on stilts say 100ft inland. Water would evaporate into these steel pipes and rise to be collected in closed troughs at the other end.The troughs would slope gently inland a mile or so . Millions of famrs would go up in the deserts next to the oceans. > Instead of steel better to have plastic with coating so that > infra red rays are reflected back into the pipe .Also external solar > concentrators can focus sunlight on to these pipes. Billions of gallons > would evaporate and collected as fresh water.The sun pours out 4kw per sq > meter in some of these areas !! What planet are you on? >> Instead of steel better to have plastic with coating so that >>infra red rays are reflected back into the pipe .Also external solar [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What planet are you on? hashbrains' track record pretty much proves him a troll....... In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote: > Instead of steel better to have plastic with coating so that > infra red rays are reflected back into the pipe .Also external solar [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > gently inland a mile or so . Millions of famrs would go up in the > deserts next to the oceans. Which is it, steel, plastic, or glass? If you have a reflective IR coating, how do you get heat in in the first place? This is one is definitly in your top 10 of nonsensical babble. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Instead of steel better to have plastic with coating so that > infra red rays are reflected back into the pipe .Also external solar [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > gently inland a mile or so . Millions of famrs would go up in the > deserts next to the oceans. You're an idiot. Graham Ok lets work this out from first principles. Imagine you have glass pipe open at one , with a vertical shelf running down the middle, dividing it into an upper and lower half. Let the floor of the upper half be coated with with a reflecting surface . So sunlight enters at the top and is reflected back into the volume of the upper half . The open end is put into the salty ocean or salty water anywhere and the glass tube slants upwards at an angle to be held up with stilts or whatever. Fresh water will evaporate and rise up the tube . The partition is open at the top end so it turns into the lower half where there is shade and it cools and condenses about half way down and is led away in pipes. Ghost please tell me its workable , remember sunlight is free , so I can patent the idea and grow very very rich. In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote: > Ok lets work this out from first principles. > Imagine you have glass pipe open at one , with a vertical shelf [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ghost please tell me its workable , remember sunlight is free > , so I can patent the idea and grow very very rich. This brain vomit, err, idea has been evaluated and found to be not only unworkable, but the product of an idiot. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. In sci.physics, habshi <hi@anony> wrote on Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:06:49 GMT <45ad5905.975156@news.clara.net>: > Ok lets work this out from first principles. > Imagine you have glass pipe open at one , ? Assuming "end". > with a vertical shelf > running down the middle, dividing it into an upper and lower half. Erm...what precisely is the orientation of this pipe? Assuming vertical. > Let the floor of the upper half be coated with with a > reflecting surface . So sunlight enters at the top and is reflected > back into the volume of the upper half . The open end is put into the > salty ocean or salty water anywhere and the glass tube slants upwards > at an angle to be held up with stilts or whatever. Ah, well that answers my one question, anyway. :-) > Fresh water will > evaporate and rise up the tube . Erm...what water? Is most of the tube submerged? How does the water get into the upper half? As for rising...one reason water vapor rises is that there's relatively cool, heavy air around it to take its place. And then there's the salt issue. > The partition is open at the top end > so it turns into the lower half where there is shade and it cools and > condenses about half way down and is led away in pipes. The water's condensation will heat the pipe. > Ghost please tell me its workable , remember sunlight is free > , so I can patent the idea and grow very very rich. I suppose one can but try, but I do have some additional questions. [1] The pipe size? I'll want both length and cylindrical radius or diameter. [2] The expected amount of distillate per second, hour, or day? There's one thing in your favor: the ocean is a huge heat sink. However, water's heat of vaporization is about 2.26 MJ/kg; since insolation is about 1000 W/m^3 you're going to want 2260 m^2 or 0.226 hectare of collector surface if you want to vaporize 1 liter of water per second. The best I can do is to build a collector tower of about 10m-15m in height. Salt water would coat a black-colored evaporation grate which is exposed to sunlight through a transparent partition but sealed off from the ambient air through a vaguely U-shaped affair, which dips into the ocean, goes through pump number 1, then rises back up *surrounding* itself (it's a shaded, double-walled pipe) before being dropped into a holding tank. As the water evaporates from near the evaporation grate, it will establish an equilibrium within the system; however, since the inner pipe of the doublewalled pipe is relatively cool, water will tend to condense there, heating the outer pipe's water. However, at some point, pump number 1 will trip on, drawing the condensed hot water into the sea cooler and moving new cooled water into the outer tube, and the warmed (but still distilled) water from the outer tube into the holding tank. Why the 10m-15m tube? Simple. The "hot" side of the tower is in a partial vacuum, and I need that height to prevent the distilled water from backwashing back into the relatively open evaporator grate. It turns out barometric pressure, when expressed as meters H2O, is about 10 meters H2O. Instead of a pipe one might contemplate a flat plate full of coils, which is more in line with a traditional heat exchanger and would probably work better anyway. Another heat exchanger dumps heat relatively deep into the ocean, where it is hoped ocean currents will carry it away from the (presumably anchored) desalination unit. The entire figure might look a bit like the following. /====================\ | | | | _ | | | | ^ | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10m sunlight | | | | \ \ | | auto | | | \ \ | | pump \ | | v | | switch \| | _ | | |*| /======== to holding tank transparent | | transparent | | | | plastic | | plastic +--+ +---+ +-+ +-------------- ----------+ | | | partial vacuum | | heat exch | | | | #1 | [----evaporation grate----] | | |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | | |~~~~~~~~~sea water~~~~~~~| +--+ +---+ +-+ |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | | \=========\ |----filtration grate-----|~~~~~~~| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+--+ +-------+~~~~~| | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| |~~~~~| | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| heat dumper|~~~~~| | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| #2 ====[]=/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | pump unit ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+------------+ (solar powered) In order to prime the unit (assuming the piping etc. is strong enough) steam might be introduced from the outlet which normally goes into the holding tank. That will flush out the air (which will bubble somewhere below the collecting tank). Some of the steam should cool near the heat dumper, and hopefully enough liquid water will collect there for the solar powered pump to begin operation -- although one might have to introduce fresh water as well, to prime things. In fact, it might be easier to use fresh water to prime the unit rather than steam. The vapor pressure of water at 30 C is about 31.8 mm Hg, or 4240 Pascal. The main problem I see with this unit is the filtration grate; presumably it will have to be replaced as barnacles might collect there. There might be issues with salt deposits on top of the collector chamber as well, from wave action/spillage. That, and the fact that it might not be worth diddly squat unless it's absolutely huge. It turns out I've misdrawn this slightly; the collector grate will have to be almost 10m above sea level anyway. But you get the idea. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm). -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com You have the salt water in the oceans , you have 4,000 MW of energy pouring down on the desert next to it , this is about four times what Hoover dam supplies. Why cant scientists make a contraption which can heat the salt water with this energy , it evaporates via a one way valve into the another pipe and a closed tank and stays there till nightfall when the cold desert air condenses it into water from where solar pumps take it to the fields. The nearby desert blooms whenever the water comes so it is quite fertile really. correction You have the salt water in the oceans , you have 4,000 MW of energy per square mile pouring down on the desert next to it , this is about four times what Hoover dam supplies. Why cant scientists make a contraption which can heat the salt water with this energy , it evaporates via a one way valve into the another pipe and a closed tank and stays there till nightfall when the cold desert air condenses it into water from where solar pumps take it to the fields. The nearby desert blooms whenever the water comes so it is quite fertile really. In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote: > correction > You have the salt water in the oceans , you have 4,000 MW of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > where solar pumps take it to the fields. The nearby desert blooms > whenever the water comes so it is quite fertile really. Add deserts to the list of things you babble on nonsensicaly about with no knowledge. Most deserts are quite infertile and have little top soil. Those things that bloom in the desert have adpated to the desert conditions. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Add deserts to the list of things you babble on nonsensicaly about.. Then, let him eat desserts..... >In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote: >> correction [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Those things that bloom in the desert have adpated to the desert >conditions. Why, then, do they bother irrigating deserts and farming them, when river water is available? In sci.physics Gordon <gordonlr@deleteswbell.net> wrote: > >In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote: > >> correction [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Why, then, do they bother irrigating deserts and farming them, > when river water is available? Because those deserts have at least some top soil and you can bet a lot of fertilizer is used. The Coachella Valley in California is a good example, where, by the way, until recent years the major crop was dates. Contrary to habshi's breathless armwaving, it takes more than just water to establish usefull agriculture in a desert. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Why, then, do they bother irrigating deserts and farming them, when river water is available? < because desert sand is fine and free of weeds and plants get throught them easily and so that is why it is so fertile. India has built the Indra Gandhi canal in Rajasthan which has rendered fertile an area as big as the Nile in Egypt ! We can do the same with ocean water , the 4000MW per sq mile energy falling on it to convert it to fresh water . Imagine an area dug below sea level , a shallow one say six feet deep. Salt water flows on to it . Then you cover it with a transparent plastic bag with holes with one way valves. Water evaporates through these holes into the bag on top and at night condenses there to be lead off . A cheap way to turn salt water into fresh!!! > > > Why, then, do they bother irrigating deserts and farming them, when river [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > lead off . > A cheap way to turn salt water into fresh!!! You're slipping, habshi! That basic idea actually works after a fashion. You better drop it immediately or you'll damage your reputation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_still Better luck next time. Regards, Bill Ward In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote: > > > Why, then, do they bother irrigating deserts and farming them, > when river water is available? < > because desert sand is fine and free of weeds and plants get > throught them easily and so that is why it is so fertile. Fertile means there are nutrients required by plants in the soil. Sand has nearly zero nutrients, irregation water would run right through sand, and is the worst possible growing medium for most agriculture. You are an idiot. <snip remaining idiocy> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. dredge and pump is how sand is farmed . dredge the sedements and put the water and the top soil on at the same time. > <snip frazirbabble> So TJ, am I right in thinking you are never going to answer my questions because you don't have _any_ money and you have never met Roman Abramovich? Another splendid post by Ghost. I never realised that the cooling water would release an energy equivalent to 4 Hiroshimas and the immense amount of water that escapes from just 1 sq miles , a tank 261meters high , many many times the height of the statue of liberty So if we have a plastic bag with a partition in the lower half which is punctured by one way holes , and allow some of the lower half to be filled with salty ocean water , the water will evaporate into the top half . At night the cold desert air will condense the water which will fall to the roof of the bottom half which is of course at an angle so the water collects near land side.It would give up the heat to the desert air and to the water in the bottom half. The amount of fresh water collected is so huge that we may need to scale down . Ghost wrote As the tank cools, it has to liberate -- somehow -- 172.8 TJ of energy -- the same amount of energy held by 41,300 tonnes of TNT! .. or four Hiroshimas ! one can envision a tank 0.4 km^2 in area at its base and a height of about 261 m If one allows 4000 MW or 4 GW of heat power to fall on the surface or the desert or whatnot for 12 hours, one gets 48 GWh or 172.8 TJ. Since water's heat of vaporization is 2.260 MJ/kg, that translate into 76,460 metric tonnes of water, or 4.2478 gigamoles (since a mole of water is 0.018 kg). Since 4000 MW will require about 4000 m^2 or 0.4 km^2 or 0.4 hectares of area, one can envision a tank 0.4 km^2 in area at its base and a height of about 261 m. For the sake of comparison, the largest (not tallest) building in the world is NASA's Vehicle Assembly Building, sited in Florida; its dimensions are about 160 meters in height, 218 meters long, 158 meters wide. That's 3.25 hectares, so is squatter and bigger than our proposed tank -- but not that much bigger, and it's not really a cube anyway, more like several blocks juxtaposed. Another building is the Empire State Building -- 381 m high. It occupies a site of 83,860 square feet or 0.779 hectare, but because it tapers it only holds 37 million cubic feet or 0.001048 km^3. So now we have a heated tank. The "cool desert air", of course, is an artifact of many things -- mostly because the desert has a low specific heat. As the tank cools, it has to liberate -- somehow -- 172.8 TJ of energy -- the same amount of energy held by 41,300 tonnes of TNT! > So if we have a plastic bag We could place it over your head and asphyxiate you ! Graham In sci.physics, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:33:37 +0000 <45B7ECD1.86C57C8F@hotmail.com>: >> So if we have a plastic bag > > We could place it over your head and asphyxiate you ! > > Graham Depends on the size. A bag 261m in height and 0.4 hectare in area would take awhile to exhaust the O2. :-) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Insert random misquote here. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Pupet sock.. try acre-feet. > Pupet sock.. > try acre-feet. Another brilliant bit of Frazir-non-sense. You really are insane. This was in reply to news:45B7ECD1.86C57C8F@hotmail.com yet is almost complete nonsense. Amazing. > correction > You have the salt water in the oceans , you have 4,000 MW of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > where solar pumps take it to the fields. The nearby desert blooms > whenever the water comes so it is quite fertile really. Why don't you become the scientist/engineer/inventor that's comes up with this "contraption"? It's easy for you and 100's of millions of other bubbleheads like you, to bob your technologically illiterate head back and forth and think some one else should be able to do it. Don't forget that 95% of United States populace, including most college graduates are scientifically and technologically illiterate (Physics is SO hard!!). Instead of being part of the problem, why not become a part of the solution? >> correction >> You have the salt water in the oceans , you have 4,000 MW of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > scientifically and technologically illiterate (Physics is SO hard!!). > Instead of being part of the problem, why not become a part of the solution? This is old-style thinking. Steorn's Orbo will soon be supplying unlimited power to allow for direct condensation of water from the moisture in the air. >>> correction >>> You have the salt water in the oceans , you have 4,000 MW of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > power to allow for direct condensation of water from the moisture in the > air. Uh-Huh...and how would you know? Actually it's old style thinking to think that some how you can live in the quite scientific-technologically-economically complex new milennium world we lift and possess all the skills and knowledge of a liberal "arts" education that is relevant only to the 18th century? > You have the salt water in the oceans , you have 4,000 MW of > energy pouring down on the desert next to it , this is about four > times what Hoover dam supplies. Why cant scientists Stop right there. Why can't **** YOU**** do all this crazy sh.t you come up with? > The nearby desert blooms whenever the water comes so it is quite fertile > really. Deserts have minimal fertility. Graham In sci.physics, habshi <hi@anony> wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:05:52 GMT <45b3feaf.1401171@news.clara.net>: > You have the salt water in the oceans , you have 4,000 MW of > energy pouring down on the desert next to it , this is about four > times what Hoover dam supplies. http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/bcphoover.html states 2.074 gigawatts. You're off by a factor of 2. :-) > Why cant scientists make a contraption > which can heat the salt water with this energy , it evaporates via a > one way valve into the another pipe and a closed tank and stays there > till nightfall when the cold desert air condenses it into water from > where solar pumps take it to the fields. The nearby desert blooms > whenever the water comes so it is quite fertile really. And how big is the tank? If one allows 4000 MW or 4 GW of heat power to fall on the surface or the desert or whatnot for 12 hours, one gets 48 GWh or 172.8 TJ. Since water's heat of vaporization is 2.260 MJ/kg, that translate into 76,460 metric tonnes of water, or 4.2478 gigamoles (since a mole of water is 0.018 kg). P = 101325 V = solved for n = 4.2478 gigamoles R = 8.314472 J/(mol K) T = 300 K or so so V = nRT/P = 0.1045 km^3. Since 4000 MW will require about 4000 m^2 or 0.4 km^2 or 0.4 hectares of area, one can envision a tank 0.4 km^2 in area at its base and a height of about 261 m. For the sake of comparison, the largest (not tallest) building in the world is NASA's Vehicle Assembly Building, sited in Florida; its dimensions are about 160 meters in height, 218 meters long, 158 meters wide. That's 3.25 hectares, so is squatter and bigger than our proposed tank -- but not that much bigger, and it's not really a cube anyway, more like several blocks juxtaposed. Another building is the Empire State Building -- 381 m high. It occupies a site of 83,860 square feet or 0.779 hectare, but because it tapers it only holds 37 million cubic feet or 0.001048 km^3. So now we have a heated tank. The "cool desert air", of course, is an artifact of many things -- mostly because the desert has a low specific heat. As the tank cools, it has to liberate -- somehow -- 172.8 TJ of energy -- the same amount of energy held by 41,300 metric tonnes of TNT. There are easier methods than "cool desert air" by which one can cool that tank; the simplest is to use a small pump to flow salt water through piping lining the tank's surface, much like one might see in older model Eichler houses (prior to the concrete pour) and ice rinks. The salt water would be extracted from the deep sea and expelled somewhere relatively harmless. There are some issues regarding sea water's corrosiveness -- not to mention the definition of "relatively harmless". There are also issues regarding the partial vacuum in the tank. In fact, I may be underestimating the size of the tank because the vapor pressure of water at 300K is not 101325 Pascal; it's more like 32 mm Hg or 4266 Pascal -- making the tank almost 25 times as big and subjecting it to a rather nasty pressure to boot, as the outside air pushes on the sides. Admitting air into the tank is possible to compensate for the pressure but that air will also have to be heated and cooled, reducing efficiency -- and in fact, the tank will be filled with almost 96% air, given the figures I'm estimating. The good news: one might cool a part of the vapor as one heats the other part -- with a scheme similar to the one I posted on some days back with two heat exchangers. As for desert fertility -- others have already addressed that subpoint, and it does not look promising. I'll admit to some curiosity as to how one can synthesize humus, but soil is a complicated mixture. This does not look like a practical scheme as written. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com In sci.physics Brablo <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com> wrote: > The Alaska Pipelines were built in '68, and they're regarded as a > value-added engineering marvel. Every day they pump tons of oil, and > they do so relatively efficiently. > In the same region, there is a lot of freshwater. Also, diametrically > opposite of Alaska is the Antarctic region. There are tons of > freshwater here as well melting everyday, I would think. > What are the possibilities of sending this water via pipelines to > parched lands (with big populations and/or good soil)? Another [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 2. Caspian Sea to Israel/Palestine, where the soil is good, but the > land is dry. Projects such as this have been talked about for about a hundred years now, mostly to refill the Dead Sea. Recently some new agreements were reached by the countries involved, but no dirt has moved. > 3. The melting mountain tops of Alaska to California, where the soil > is great, and the population is high, but it's dry there. Too far away and too many high mountains in between. Besides, there is lots of water in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington, it just isn't managed. Besides, it is a lot cheaper to build things like the recently built Diamond Lake that catches some of the enormous amount of rain that otherwise just flows into the Pacific. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Of course the pipes would be covered to stop evaporation and solar pumps at intervals . It would be a great way to tackle global warning , shipping water to the deserts would let us grow trees there to soak up all the co2. Remember we need carbon for our bodies. In sci.physics, habshi <hi@anony> wrote on Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:04:33 GMT <45a98f25.3095656@news.clara.net>: > Of course the pipes would be covered to stop evaporation and > solar pumps at intervals . > It would be a great way to tackle global warning , shipping > water to the deserts would let us grow trees there to soak up all the > co2. Remember we need carbon for our bodies. Anyone else notice a certain disconnect in the last sentence? Also, in order to use solar pumps -- I'm assuming you're referring to photovoltaic-powered electrical motor units connected to some sort of impeller assembly -- someone has to manufacture the PV panels. These are inherently expensive (although they're better than they were, pricewise -- but it's still over $4/W wholesale). Since I don't know the height of the mountain you're attempting to raise the water over, or the amount of water you need per second, I'm not sure how much power you'll need. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com In sci.physics The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > In sci.physics, habshi > <hi@anony> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > water to the deserts would let us grow trees there to soak up all the > > co2. Remember we need carbon for our bodies. > Anyone else notice a certain disconnect in the last sentence? Not as bad as the first sentence. Anyone ever hear of a "pipe" with an open top? <snip> SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Remember we need carbon for our bodies. Anyone else notice a certain disconnect in the last sentence?< Just meant we should not overdo the carbon renewal and find we dont have enough to refurbish our bodies which mother nature is trying to degrade everyday. Pipes are incredibly cheap to build and once built last for ever. Say take the Alps water to the Spanish desert , will need minimal solar pumping and could generate billions each year in crops. Same in other parts of the world. In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote: > Remember we need carbon for our bodies. > Anyone else notice a certain disconnect in the last sentence?< > Just meant we should not overdo the carbon renewal and find we > dont have enough to refurbish our bodies which mother nature is trying > to degrade everyday. Babbling nonsense. > Pipes are incredibly cheap to build and once built last for > ever. Say take the Alps water to the Spanish desert , will need > minimal solar pumping and could generate billions each year in crops. > Same in other parts of the world. Pipes are expensive to build, both for the structure and the right of ways. Pipes require constant maintenance. There have been two major water pipe line shutdowns for maintenance in my area alone in the past year. You haven't a clue. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > Pipes are incredibly cheap to build and once built last for > ever. It would cost $283 million to $752 million to build a pipeline to move vast amounts of water across the Continental Divide from the Green River to the North Platte River Basin, state water officials say. The study looked at a 54-inch steel pipeline that would carry 50,000 acre feet of water a year. http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/06/17/news/wyoming/bad625de1dea28 e387257023000517f4.txt That works out to a capital cost of $5500 to $15,000 per household to supply 50,000 households, using a SHORT pipeline. > Say take the Alps water to the Spanish desert , will need > minimal solar pumping and could generate billions each year in crops. > Same in other parts of the world. At the above rate, it would cost over $100,000 to deliver water to each household in a Spanish desert, which if amortized over 30 years, would cost over $700 per month, not counting operating costs. Is that incredibly cheap? Only if you're currently spending over 1000 quid per month on your water. Are you spending that much? In sci.physics, M. Ranjit Mathews <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote on 14 Jan 2007 10:59:17 -0800 <1168801156.979465.315160@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>: >> Pipes are incredibly cheap to build and once built last for >> ever. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > incredibly cheap? Only if you're currently spending over 1000 quid per > month on your water. Are you spending that much? Additional data, eh? :-) From my previous post, $1B/year worth of corn harvests will require 4.0558 km^3/year of water (as a very gross estimate). You are postulating here a cost of $283M to ferry 50,000 acre-feet of water/year, or 0.061674 km^3 of water/year, over a short pipeline. This means that an irrigation pipeline to carry enough water to irrigate $1B/year worth of crop will cost $18.6B, and that's just for the pipeline, never mind pumps and water costs. Hardly cheap. If we take your second input the costs increase from $18.6B to $18.6 * 100000 / 15000 = $124B, give or take. That's almost 1/8th of Spain's GDP. Thank you, Habshi, for demonstrating once again that you have no concept of the real scale of your admittedly inventive projects. :-) (Side issue: return on investment is apparently at least 124 years, pending inclusion of such things as bond interest rates and the aforementioned pumps, not to mention such things as desalination plants; I'm not hopeful about the Alps being able to supply the water. Not horribly practical.) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #1123133: void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); } -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics, M. Ranjit Mathews > <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > hopeful about the Alps being able to supply the water. > Not horribly practical.) Hmm... "pipes" from the Alps are called... err... let me think... err... wait... it's coming... err... err... err... I've almost got it.... err... rivers! Yes, that's it. I don't think they run from the Alps through France over the Pyrenees to Spain, though, the Basque separatists won't allow it. >>> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> >>> Say take the Alps water to the Spanish desert , will need >>> minimal solar pumping and could generate billions each >>> year in crops. Same in other parts of the world. [Andro] Hmm... "pipes" from the Alps are called... err... let me think... err... wait... it's coming... err... err... err... I've almost got it.... err... rivers! Yes, that's it. --- I don't think they run from the Alps through France over over the Pyrenees to Spain, though, the Basque separatists won't allow it. [hanson] ahahahaha.... of course not, but never mind the Basques. The green sh.ts of CH, the Confederatio Helvetica (Switzerland) will not be "neutral" on this... So, here's a true story of real difficulties that arise with such projects, even on a comparatively minuscule scale. For millennia, the Swiss "Sennen" ( = alpine cow boys dressed in a short Afghan type tunic, knee high pants and donning a Jewish Yarmulke, instead of a turban, and blowing their Alphorns) were yodeling, grazing and milking their cows in the lush, high alpine meadows, 2-3000 meters high up, 5-10 miles away from their village in the valleys below. So, they carried and marched their milk production daily down to the consumers in huge 10-25 gallon metal back-pack containers that looked like jumbo sized flat pocket Scotch bottles. -- Tiresome, back braking, heaving hard work. Enter the 20th century. Circa 1960 a splendid Cuckoo clock inventor had the same idea that hashit has advocated here: ** Build a cheap plastic pipeline to bring the milk from the high-up-there-udders, fast and easy to down into the café's and to the cheese makers' facilities in the valley. ** With great fanfare & Yodel the first milk-run was announced. Down in the valley they waited, ....and waited at the tap, .. ... a long time... and opened the spigot wide.... Nothing came out, despite flawless previous trial runs with water... ahahaha... Then finally, slowly a trickle of pale greenish liquid dripped out of the wide open spigot.... the whey, followed by masses of half molten soft butter.... ahahahaha... The milk rushing down hill got the same beating in the pipes, that the Swiss used to make butter from the milk, the traditional way, by beating/stirring it in a rotating hex-drum. The problem was rectified by installing baffles every few feet. I mention this so that habshi can promote the production of "Ghee" in his lay of the lands where I had the pleasure of enduring several stints in the parched lands of Bangalore, the jungles of the Nilgiris mountains,Ootacamund, the green slopes of Ghats and on the great, black Monazite beaches of Kerala. -- habshi, I truly enjoyed your colorful culture. Was great, despite the awful occasional amoeba attacks, which were far worse than Montezuma's revenge in Meso America. ahahaha... ahahahanson >>>> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> >>>> Say take the Alps water to the Spanish desert , will need [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > far worse than Montezuma's revenge in Meso America. > ahahaha... ahahahanson So that's where the story of Little Muss Miffet came from... When will these people ever learn that everything is free until you pay someone to supply it, and then you pay taxes to someone you vote for who decides it's bad for the environment? Fox-hunting is illegal in Britain, now the bastards stroll down the railway lines (breaking the law, but foxes don't care) to scavenge in the cities because they've eaten all the fuckin' real sheep. And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England's mountains green? And was the ho-ole leg of lamb On England's pleasant pastures seen? And did the Countenance Divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Islamabad builded here Among these dark satanic mills? Bring me my bow of burning gold; Bring me my arrows of desire; Bring me my spear; O clouds, unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire! I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Islamabad In England's green and pleasant land. - Billy Blake. This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England, This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings, Fear'd by their breed and famous by their birth, Renowned for their deeds as far from home, For Christian service and true chivalry, As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry, Of the world's ransom, blessed Mary's Son, This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land, Dear for her reputation through the world, Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it, Like to a tenement or pelting farm: England, bound in with the triumphant sea Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself. Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life, How happy then were my ensuing death! John of Gaunt. (Richard II, Shakespeare) You dont have to carry these pipes 'over' mountains , you can dig a tunnel through them > You dont have to carry these pipes 'over' mountains , you can > dig a tunnel through them No. *YOU* can dig a tunnel through them you utter moron. Tunnel my arse / a.s ! Graham In sci.physics, habshi <hi@anony> wrote on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:55:22 GMT <45aad0dd.1949140@news.clara.net>: > You dont have to carry these pipes 'over' mountains , you can > dig a tunnel through them Do you have an idea how expensive it is to tunnel through solid rock? That's assuming it *is* solid rock; real tunnel engineering has to worry about strata in the tunnel. No doubt you've seen pictures of the US Grand Canyon, with the sedimentary layers in beautiful colors; it is naive to think such layering is only above ground, especially since we now know that said layering is done over millions of years. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127: for(;;) ; -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > You dont have to carry these pipes 'over' mountains , you can > dig a tunnel through them Go on then, start digging, fuckhead. In sci.physics, habshi <hi@anony> wrote on Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:46:26 GMT <45aa259d.5820062@news.clara.net>: > Remember we need carbon for our bodies. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dont have enough to refurbish our bodies which mother nature is trying > to degrade everyday. I don't think that will be a major problem, somehow. :-) > Pipes are incredibly cheap to build and once built last for > ever. Say take the Alps water to the Spanish desert , will need > minimal solar pumping and could generate billions each year in crops. > Same in other parts of the world. Well, that gives me something as to how much is required. Lessee. First, how much is $1B/year in crops? Grain market coughs up Chicago Board of Trade, which is probably a good start as any. However, a better data set might be http://econ.sdstate.edu/Extension/corn.htm (since it's free :-) ). It turns out one is feeding the other. Corn futures are trading at 396 (March), which tells me very little until I figure out what the units are. Judging from other futures markets I hold little hope that they're metric. It turns out some CBOT data is free after all; Google coughed up the following link: http://www.cbot.com/cbot/pub/page/0,3181,1213,00.html and it turns out the trading unit is 5,000 bushels, with the price quoted at cents per bushel. In other words, that 396 is $3.96 per bushel of corn, with delivery in March, minimum size 5,000 bushels -- or 176.2 m^3. Not sure that'll fit in my condo all that well. (BTW, the futures are increasing rapidly for some reason; back in Jan 5 the March futures were only $3.68/bushel.) So now I have -- conceptually -- a bushel of corn, worth $3.96. How much land and water is needed to grow that bushel? (It turns out there are other issues, such as fertilization. Not surprising, really. For now, I'll concentrate on water delivery.) http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB774/ contains some very interesting data -- among them estimated crop yield in bushels per planted acre (this is region-dependent but runs about 128 bushels/year/acre for the entire US). However, the amount of water falling on the field is not clear. http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropirrigation.html does mention some specifics as to the total amount of rainwater, depending on area; the figure suggests 20-22 acre-inches of water for that acre of corn. (Since an acre-foot is a well-known unit of volume, this works very well for me; 1 acre-foot = 1233.5 m^3.) I'll use 20 acre-inches or 2055.8 m^3 per year per acre of water delivery. Since we need $1B of product per year, we'll need 1 * 10^9 / (3.96 * 128) = 1972900.0 acres (or 7984 km^2) to grow it on, and 4.0558 * 10^9 m^3 of water (or 4.0558 km^3) per year. A Google on "spanish desert" coughed up some interesting recipies. Apparently "spanish deSSert" is a flan-based affair with sprinkled peanuts; sounds rather tasty but not all that relevant (especially since it's made with eggs and milk, not corn). Ah, the distractions of the Web... Of course, one can always go to either Wikipedia or the World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html#Geo which among other things is suggesting that Spain is already irrigating 37800 km^2 of land, so they're way ahead of you as it turns out. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html#Econ states agriculture is 4% of Spain's GDP, which is $1.033 trillion total; this means Spanish agriculture is worth about $41.3B. Assuming all of that is from corn (which is unlikely) and that Spanish corn yields are similar to those in the US (ditto), that translates into 329700 km^2 of corn cropland. This is way more than available, since Spain's total land is only 499542 km^2, of which arable land is 27.18% or 135776 km^2. (Since corn is an annual this is the proper category.) But it's in the ballpark, and should give you an idea of the scope of the problem. An interesting subissue is how many kcal/bushel. Regrettably, http://www.kallipolis.com/diet/food.php?id=11168&w=3 gives a serving size of one ear, which doesn't do me a lot of good. http://nutrition.about.com/od/fruitsandvegetables/p/sweetcorn.htm does give me a volume measurement -- 68.36 g of water is of course 68.36 cm^3. However, it's not clear to me whether that original bushel in the corn contract includes shucking or not. I suspect that it does; kernels are easier to handle presumably. So therefore, theoretically, 1 bushel of corn will have 515.49 * 77 kcal = 39,700 kcal, give or take (there's a number of issues here, not the least of how fast the corn grew). Disclaimer: Usenet is a big paper napkin. :-) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux sucks efficiently, but Windows just blows around a lot of hot air and vapor. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Pipes are incredibly cheap to build and once built last for ever. LMFAO ! I'll bet Thames Water wishes that were true. The crisis is that underground pipes, particularly those belonging to Thames Water, are in many cases over 100 years old and leak like sieves. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=402328&in_page_id=2 Graham > 2. Caspian Sea to Israel/Palestine, where the soil is good, but the > land is dry. Caspian is not freshwater. Also, Caspian isn't located the way you want. It is located the way Iranians want. -- >The Alaska Pipelines were built in '68, and they're regarded as a >value-added engineering marvel. Every day they pump tons of oil, and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >3. The melting mountain tops of Alaska to California, where the soil >is great, and the population is high, but it's dry there. Another approach that might work better and be cheaper to implement could be to pump seawater through a horizontal flume equipped with graphite ropes which are moving across the flume, orthogonal to the water flow. Set these graphite ropes up in pairs and charge them as electrodes. The electrode charge will attract sodium and chlorine ions to the appropriately charged rope/electrode. These ropes laden with saline ions will then pass through orifices along the side of the flume, then pass over some graphite support structures that short the electrode paired ropes, deleting their charge. The attached saline ions would then be released into a discharge tank or flume and returned to the ocean. The water in the primary flume would get progressively less saline as it flows past a large number of these charged graphite rope electrode pairs. The linear resistance of the graphite ropes should permit charging a portion of the rope pairs while shorting another portion and killing the charge. The charge voltage would have to be less than the breakdown potential of water. Gordon In sci.physics Gordon <gordonlr@deleteswbell.net> wrote: > >The Alaska Pipelines were built in '68, and they're regarded as a > >value-added engineering marvel. Every day they pump tons of oil, and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > equipped with graphite ropes which are moving across the flume, > orthogonal to the water flow. > Set these graphite ropes up in pairs and charge them as > electrodes. The electrode charge will attract sodium and chlorine [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > structures that short the electrode paired ropes, deleting their > charge. > The attached saline ions would then be released into a discharge > tank or flume and returned to the ocean. The water in the primary > flume would get progressively less saline as it flows past a > large number of these charged graphite rope electrode pairs. > The linear resistance of the graphite ropes should permit > charging a portion of the rope pairs while shorting another > portion and killing the charge. The charge voltage would have to > be less than the breakdown potential of water. Gordon If you somehow were actually able to disassociate the sodium chloride into sodium and chlorine, the sodium would immediately become sodium hydroxide while chlorine bubbled off the other end. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >In sci.physics Gordon <gordonlr@deleteswbell.net> wrote: [snip] >> Another approach that might work better and be cheaper to >> implement could be to pump seawater through a horizontal flume [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >into sodium and chlorine, the sodium would immediately become sodium >hydroxide while chlorine bubbled off the other end. In an H2O solution, sodium and chlorine are normally dissociated into free ions. These saline ions won't react with the H2O unless the H2O is electrolyzed into free hydrogen and oxygen. This requires something in excess of about 1.25 volts. Keep the electrode potential below this level and there should be no problem. The saline ions are the means by which saline solutions exhibit electrical conductivity. These ions are drawn by their charges to the electrode of opposite charge, and will cling to the electrode in the Stern and Guoy diffuse layers. It seems this "clinging" could be used to drag the ions out of the solution, sort of like leading the goats out of the sheep pen. Gordon Plasic underwater pipes from 1 mountain river uner the sea to a sea level exit 2000 miles away is worth it on a giant scale big time but worthless on a small scale . Hi T.J., You wrote something like: Plasic underwater pipes from 1 mountain river passing under the sea to a sea-level exit 2,000 miles away is worth it on a giant scale, big time; but worthless on a small scale. You say your Sliding_Vane_Rotor ( in an otherwise ordinary vehicle ) could travel from, say, Seattle to Key West Florida on one tank of gasoline. Wouldn't that be valuable on a small scale ? How is it that, here on the Internet, you're the only one who's claimed to have done anthing like that ? In sci.physics, Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote on 20 Jan 2007 07:00:04 GMT <Jeff_Relf_2007_Jan_19_1_@Cotse.NET>: > Hi T.J., You wrote something like: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > could travel from, say, Seattle to Key West Florida on one tank of gasoline. > Wouldn't that be valuable on a small scale ? Interstate truckers would love him. :-) However, assuming 5600 km and 10 km/liter (or 23.5 mpg), one would have to carry around a 560-liter tank -- at least. > How is it that, here on the Internet, > you're the only one who's claimed to have done anthing like that ? Is he? There was one character who claimed to have developed a faster than light radio. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net "Woman? What woman?" -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com no ftl bullshit ghost you lost soul. 24 inch slidingvane motor 3 inch wide . 10 % of a doble steam boiler. 1200 cubic inch at 650 psi per second. at 277 HP its 250 MPG . at 71 hp its 423mpg. 71 hp is 3.4 gal day 423 mpg 142 hp is 205 mpg Thats off the shelf doble steamer boiler that ran a 400 cid engine runs 4 inch of vane 1100 hp. 1 square inch at 650 psi is 71 hp 650 foot pounds T. 2 square inch is 1300 foot pounds at 500 rpm is 1200 cubic inch per sec. The 400 cid steam engine uses 13333 cubic inch steam per sec. You 350 v8 uses 12000 per sec. cunic inch of power stroke . The sliding vane I biiuld has little friction and will go 1 million miles. No transmision , dont nead one . the rotor is on the end of the drive shaft joint. its on top of the rear end. I keep a clean pair of shoes where the engine would be if I was stupid like you. No hood. No radiator . The car has up to 1500 hp at slow speeds. 2600 foot pounds from a dead stop. in my 1910 silver Ghost 6 door 2 windshield custom. on the news .. HA HA soap factory on hill on fire lexiton. fire fighters fought all night. In the morning light the town down the hill was ,,,,,,foamed over.. 10,000 tons of soap and 20 fire hoses for 4 hours ...hummm and a waterfall dam in town just 10 feet.. thats on around the world in 60,, you cant see the town ..china In sci.physics, tj Frazir <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 01:41:22 -0500 <8664-45B30B12-72@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net>: > no ftl bullshit ghost you lost soul. Well, that's probably an improvement over losing other things. Like my mind. > > 24 inch slidingvane motor 3 inch wide . [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thats off the shelf doble steamer boiler that ran a 400 cid engine runs > 4 inch of vane 1100 hp. OK, so you've gotten venture capital and started manufacturing liquid piston steam engines, right? [rest snipped] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net /dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Hi Ghost_In_The_Machine, T.J. dumped the Liquid Piston idea. Now there's just a " flash boiler " ( for relatively quick cold-starts ), super-heated steam pushing against the variable suface area of a sliding vane, ...in a rotor 24 inches in diameter and and 3 inches tall. In his Silver Ghost, this rotor is attached directly to the top of the rear axle. See: http://WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Doble_Steam_Car He didn't say if anyone drove it 3,500 miles without refuling it's 20 gallon tank... and I don't know much about it. T.J. wants to stick it to Big Oil, and Dobles can burn anything, including wood or coal. 100 million of them. Ghost is too retarted to do the math on a sliding vane rotor. 400 cid steam engine uses 13000 cubc inch per second. But a sliding vane rotor 2 inch vane at 650 psi is 1300 foot pounds and uses 1200 cubic inch per sec . Thats 10 % dumbass . and a V8 350 cid is 12000 cubc inch second. It has less then 200 foot pounds tourk. 1200 cubic inch per sec at 1300 foot pounds is 10 % the fuel and much more power . There is no way a V8 can compete with a svr. A 71 hp outboard motor on 3.4 gal per 24 hours is an oil well stopper. 10 % the fuel is the end of green house and the oil age and the rag heads. 200 billion more for me :) > <snip gibberish> You still no nothing about physics or mathematics. Why didn't you give Jeff the boat you promised him you cheapskate. Speak to your friend Roman and ask him what company turned up for the meeting about his risk management options - and who the representatives of that company were. Bet you can't get an answer. In sci.physics, tj Frazir <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:10:44 -0500 <10429-45B52854-148@storefull-3213.bay.webtv.net>: > 100 million of them. Sales of 100 million motors at $1000/motor would result in a gross revenue of more than $100B. Even if one assumes 20 years manufacture of all of these motors that's still more than $5B / year. That's a little smaller than Black & Decker ($6.57B) -- but not much. > Ghost is too retarted to do the math on a sliding vane rotor. > 400 cid steam engine uses 13000 cubc inch per second. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > more power . > There is no way a V8 can compete with a svr. Then why are we still using V8s to power cars, rather than steam powered sliding vane liquid piston affairs? Perhap |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message