Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 you were the one who said 10's of thousands. so the lol is on you mate. you obviously don't understand basic physics(or even mathematic or logical arguement) you're being moronic. grow up and prove to me that there is something resembling intelligence on your side of the arguement. Hey mods can you get this guy off of me he is disrupting my blog here and calling me names! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 this isn't a blog. this is a forum. and the mods are more likely to get rid of you as you are the one breaking the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 this isn't a blog. this is a forum. and the mods are more likely to get rid of you as you are the one breaking the rules. Blog forum what ever! Can you kindly go away? You are being very disruptive. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 i don't agree with you so i'm being disruptive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 You're not giving yourself enough credit, insane_alien. You're doing far more than disagreeing with him... You're being amazingly patient, and further you've been trying to help him for the last 4 pages. The fact that he wants you to go away, thinks you're calling him names, and is referring to you as "disruptive" is why I asked for the thread to be locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 oh i can go another hundred pages if its necessary. i'm just a bit frustrated that he has stooped to low tactics to try and win an arguement(not that it makes his idea any more right). cyclonebuster, i am willing to have a civil arguement if you are, but you need to stop going round in circles, it gets you nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 The proof is in the video! See you trolls later bye! -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 yeah, we're the trolls. good one. least you have some sense of humour. have fun not getting anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I know I am very late to the party here, but if anyone wants to actually learn some fluid mechanics, I suggest Munson Young and Okishii's Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics as an excellent all-around text. Fox and MacDonald is also excellent. Both are very commonly used as first-semester fluids texts in many engineering programs across the globe, simply because they do a very good job introducing the subject without going into great depth and yet covering the topic so that all the essentials are conveyed well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 IA please try to refrain from calling people morons. Having said that, cyclonebuster, IA has patinently explained several times the flaws in your plan, you seem to assume that because there is a flow of water you can magically get energy to maintain that volumetric flow rate even if you add slower water into it, this is false. There are other issues which IA has also pointed out. I suggest you go and read some fluid mechanics before arguing that your idea will work. I'm using the term argue very loosely here. This forum does not take well to people who just ignore science and shout "it will work" over and over again, that is not how the universe works, it doesn't care what you imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonebuster Posted September 19, 2009 Author Share Posted September 19, 2009 IA please try to refrain from calling people morons. Having said that, cyclonebuster, IA has patinently explained several times the flaws in your plan, you seem to assume that because there is a flow of water you can magically get energy to maintain that volumetric flow rate even if you add slower water into it, this is false. There are other issues which IA has also pointed out. I suggest you go and read some fluid mechanics before arguing that your idea will work. I'm using the term argue very loosely here. This forum does not take well to people who just ignore science and shout "it will work" over and over again, that is not how the universe works, it doesn't care what you imagine. You can clearly see the venturi I installed which was tested in the ~1/4 mph current. The gulfstreams current is 6mph. The water has to increase its velocity within the narrow section of the venturi. That narrow section is were I aim to place the turbine/ generator except it will be 650 times larger due to the scale difference. Here is an image of the venturi on youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 and once again you show no appreciation for scale. or the fact that you think you can both speed up the current of the gulf stream AND extract energy from it without putting energy into the system. if you want to speed up the gulf stream you NEED to put a LOT of energy in. if you want to extract energy FROM the gulf stream then you WILL slow it down. these are not options or technical barriers, merely conservation of energy. as i said before. make up your mind and bring us a consistent and coherent idea. then we can move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonebuster Posted September 19, 2009 Author Share Posted September 19, 2009 and once again you show no appreciation for scale. or the fact that you think you can both speed up the current of the gulf stream AND extract energy from it without putting energy into the system. if you want to speed up the gulf stream you NEED to put a LOT of energy in. if you want to extract energy FROM the gulf stream then you WILL slow it down. these are not options or technical barriers, merely conservation of energy. as i said before. make up your mind and bring us a consistent and coherent idea. then we can move on. Florida Atlantic University is already extracting energy from the Gulfsteam and slowing it down. What makes you think this is a bad thing? Even if you extract the energy from it it will speed back up downstream of the turbines as the Earths forces will act upon it and speed it back up. http://coet.fau.edu/?p=pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 no, it won't you seem to think that the gulf stream is a magical source of energy. its not. and besides, florida universities generator is 20kW. add in 500kW for friction and you have 5.2*10^-11% of the power of the gulf stream. this really is insignificant. its insignificant because the natural variations in the power of the gulfstream FAR exceedthis. if you had 10^11 of them THEN it would make an impact. but if you are still wanting to divert the water to stop hurricanes that you are looking at 134% of the power of the gulf stream. you just can't do it. are you going to come up with a consistent idea or are you just going to resort in running round in circles again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonebuster Posted September 19, 2009 Author Share Posted September 19, 2009 no, it won't you seem to think that the gulf stream is a magical source of energy. its not. and besides, florida universities generator is 20kW. add in 500kW for friction and you have 5.2*10^-11% of the power of the gulf stream. this really is insignificant. its insignificant because the natural variations in the power of the gulfstream FAR exceedthis. if you had 10^11 of them THEN it would make an impact. but if you are still wanting to divert the water to stop hurricanes that you are looking at 134% of the power of the gulf stream. you just can't do it. are you going to come up with a consistent idea or are you just going to resort in running round in circles again? We are not using the power of the gulfstream to weaken the hurricane we are using the deep cool water from the depths to weaken it. We are using the KE at the same time to generate electricity. The friction created is far less than the tens of thousands of ships that cross the gulfsteam daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 why do you think it'll have less friction than tens of thousands of ships? ships are tiny compared to this thing.there's going to be thousands of square kilometers of surface area, hundereds as the cross section exposed to the direction of travel. if you made a wall out of every ship in the world it'd still have less of an effect than the project you are proposing. and it'll stillcause major enviromental distruption. you're going round in circles again after repeated requests to stop it(once by a mod as well). this behaviour is not encouraged here and if it continues it will probably lead to a suspension, if it continues after a suspension then you'd be banned. now, are you just going to repeat the same old crap again or are you going to come up with soemthing new. heck, even just a consistent and coherent idea(which i have yet to see). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonebuster Posted September 19, 2009 Author Share Posted September 19, 2009 why do you think it'll have less friction than tens of thousands of ships? ships are tiny compared to this thing.there's going to be thousands of square kilometers of surface area, hundereds as the cross section exposed to the direction of travel. if you made a wall out of every ship in the world it'd still have less of an effect than the project you are proposing. and it'll stillcause major enviromental distruption. you're going round in circles again after repeated requests to stop it(once by a mod as well). this behaviour is not encouraged here and if it continues it will probably lead to a suspension, if it continues after a suspension then you'd be banned. now, are you just going to repeat the same old crap again or are you going to come up with soemthing new. heck, even just a consistent and coherent idea(which i have yet to see). Wrong each one is about the size of an aircraft carrier with much less mass. You only need a 1020 of them to span the width of the Gulfstream or 2040 of them if you make them 1/2 as small. You think I care about being banned I have the video proof it works. LOL! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWrong each one is about the size of an aircraft carrier with much less mass. You only need a 1020 of them to span the width of the Gulfstream or 2040 of them if you make them 1/2 as small. You think I care about being banned I have the video proof it works. LOL! Your thinking we will leave them in cooling phase all the time. We don't. Only about 5 percent of the time they are in cooling phase and only when a hurricane threatens or if we want to restore some arctic ice. All the rest of the time the flow is shunted back to the top for power generation also no cooling at all in this phase. So you see we have the ability to regulate the climate with them something we can not do now with un-regulated consumption of fossil fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 yeah, obviously you don't want a discussion and debate you just want to preach. this doesn't make you right and your 'proof' is neither to scale nor representative of the truth. you already admitted your math wasn't good enough to grasp the bernoulli equation yet you claim to have all this worked out and haven't really given any evidence. go learn some physics and fluid mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Stop pointing to that video of which you do not have the slightest clue of what is actually going on. No need to discuss what is going on as that would simply mean i have to point at IA's posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonebuster Posted September 19, 2009 Author Share Posted September 19, 2009 yeah, obviously you don't want a discussion and debate you just want to preach. this doesn't make you right and your 'proof' is neither to scale nor representative of the truth. you already admitted your math wasn't good enough to grasp the bernoulli equation yet you claim to have all this worked out and haven't really given any evidence. go learn some physics and fluid mechanics. It is not only Bernoulli that creates the pressure differential between the two openings it is also Pacals theory of hydraulics working at the entrance. And yes the WORKING model I built is pretty close to scale. If you think I am using trick photography in the video then I challenge ANYONE to build one and test it. You will find I am right! It works because FORCE1 is greater than FORCE2. It can be written as F1>F2= FLOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 I challenge ANYONE to build one and test it. You will find I am right! It works because FORCE1 is greater than FORCE2. It can be written as F1>F2= FLOW. Using greater than or less than symbols results in a truth outcome of either true or false. So: 5 > 3 = TRUE 2 > 5 = FALSE F1 > F2 = FLOW actually equals meaningless. Just FYI... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 ahem, bernoullis principle incorporates pascals theory of hydraulics. the only difference is bernoullis principle is more general and can be applied to systems where the fluid is moving. BUT, the fact that there is a hydrostatic head difference caused by a difference in elevation DOES NOT RESULT IN A MOTIVE FORCE. the reason it doesn't result in a motice force is because of gravity. the same force that creates a difference in pressure in the first place. the net force is zero so there would be no flow due to hydrostatic head. what causes the water to rise is the velocity head being converted to hydrostatic head by slowing down the velocity of the water. in other words, it only works when the water or the pipe is moving. if they are stationary with respect to each other then there will be no flow. noone is saying the videos are faked. we are saying you have demonstrated you don't have the slightest clue as to whats really going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonebuster Posted September 19, 2009 Author Share Posted September 19, 2009 ahem, bernoullis principle incorporates pascals theory of hydraulics. the only difference is bernoullis principle is more general and can be applied to systems where the fluid is moving. BUT, the fact that there is a hydrostatic head difference caused by a difference in elevation DOES NOT RESULT IN A MOTIVE FORCE. the reason it doesn't result in a motice force is because of gravity. the same force that creates a difference in pressure in the first place. the net force is zero so there would be no flow due to hydrostatic head. what causes the water to rise is the velocity head being converted to hydrostatic head by slowing down the velocity of the water. in other words, it only works when the water or the pipe is moving. if they are stationary with respect to each other then there will be no flow. noone is saying the videos are faked. we are saying you have demonstrated you don't have the slightest clue as to whats really going on. You honestly think I would have tested it in non-moving water? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 well you seemed to be claiming it was just the pressure difference caused by hydrostatic head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclonebuster Posted September 19, 2009 Author Share Posted September 19, 2009 well you seemed to be claiming it was just the pressure difference caused by hydrostatic head. I already did that test with a straw and a glass of water before anything else was tested years ago.lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts