Cyclonebuster

I hardly know any math. I'd like to see the math.

Looks like the very very smart professor did the math for me.

quote:

Yes, I have spoken with Patrick, and, yes, a scheme somewhat like the one he describes could weaken hurricanes threatening places like Miami that have strong western-margin currents just offshore. There are, however, numerous qualifications.

The scheme that we discussed involved an array of several rows devices across the Gulfstream. Each device would be a rectangular duct 140 m long and 10 by 14 m in cross section. Normally the devices would be moored horizontally at a depth of 100m with their long axes aligned with the current flow. They would be nearly neutrally buoyant. When a hurricane approached, ballast at the downstream end of the channel would be released, allowing the device to float up to a 45 deg angle. Cold water entering the upstream end would flow up to the surface and mix with the warmer water there. Since the mixture would be negatively buoyant, it would sink. But mixing due to several (3-10) lines of these devices could cool the surface waters of the Gulfstream by 1-2C, enough to weaken an Andrew-like hurricane from category 5 to category 3. A rough calculation indicates that a device every 100 m on each line of moorings (~1000 devices per ~100 km line) and 3-10 lines of moorings would be required. My guess is that it would cost $250K to fabricate and deploy a single device, but there might be economies of scale. One might also be able to optimize the size and spacing of the devices.

Let's say that careful calculation told us that 4 lines of 1000 devices each would do the trick. At $0.25M per device, the cost works out to 4*1000*($0.25M) = $1000M. The actual cost might range from a few hundred million to a small multiple of a (US = 1000M) billion. One would want to do a detailed simulation before defining the scope of the project, but the basic notion is conversion of some of the kinetic energy of the Gulfstream into gravitational potential energy of the mixed water column. Again, I've not done that detailed simulation, only back-of-the-envelope calculations.

Activation of the array would require accurate forecasting since it would take several days for the effect to make its way from south of the Dry Tortugas (optimum location for protecting the maximum amount of shoreline) to the landfall point.

South Florida gets hit by a category 4 or 5 hurricane at every few years, but the really damaging ones like Andrew tend to be once-a-generation events, or less frequent. The array would need to be deployed and maintained for a long time between activations that actually safeguard property, although false alarms would not be particularly costly. Annual maintenance could easily exceed 10% of initial deployment cost. Bear in mind that Key West to Jacksonville is the only stretch of US coastline where this strategy would work. The other vulnerable sites, Houston-Galveston and New Orleans, lack the necessary strong offshore currents. While Georgia and the Carolinas also experience many hurricane landfalls and have the Gulfstream offshore, most of these cyclones are already weakening because of vertical shear of the horizontal wind so that a second installation north of Jacksonville would be much less useful.

There has been a lot of talk about using wave and current energy to cool the ocean ahead of hurricanes. My general conclusion is that while these ideas might be made to work, the proponents underestimate the scope of the required effort, as well as the political will and recurring cost necessary to keep the project going in the long intervals between really damaging hurricanes. Skeptic that I am, I think that wiser land-use policy and more rigorous building standards are much more cost-effective and more politically feasible. A proof-of-concept that might entail deploying a half dozen devices has some appeal, but I think that there are more promising ways to spend disaster-prevention money.

Best regards,

Hugh Willoughby

http://www2.fiu.edu/~geology/Content/People/Faculty/willoughby.htm

...

You asked us to analyze the mathematics of your contraption. We did, and your replies were increasingly condescending. We'd love to discuss the viability or "coolness factor" of any new ideas, but we'd just rather be aware in advance that we're talking with someone who already knows the math or operations of it, and not try to explain and get "graded" for our answers.

 

Just an idea, here.

 

~mooey

I hardly know any math. I'd like to see the math.

Being honest about your intentions when you post the video will be a good start. People will be less annoyed with your message that way.

 

~mooey

I thought it was pretty honest in saying that they work good for climate control at the very beginning.

"Underwater Suspension Tunnels"

"Video proves they work for climate control"

"Can the videos be explained mathematically?"

meanwhile the ice in canada will continue to melt, then flood the north atlantic with fresh water causing a shutdown of the thermo-haline circulation.

 

seriously, you are again focusing so narrowly on one tiny part of to climate system that you aren't considering impacts on the rest of the world or the fact that you aren't actually helping solve global warming

Negative. The ice caps are the worlds refrigerators the more ice they have on top of them the cooler the world will be including Canada and the rest of the world.

how is cooling the gulf stream going to cool down some unrelated ice?

 

look, if you introduce a large block of cooling at any point along the gulf stream you are going to both weaken it and cause it to sink prematurely which will be bad for the UK and Europe.

It's not that it will cool down some unrelated ice it will cause more ice to form which is what we need to restore those levels of ice to pre-industrial revolution extents and volumes right now in the Northern Arctic..

no, its not the warming of the gulf stream that will cause it to shut down, its the warming of some iceshelves in canada that are relatively unaffected by gulf stream conditions that would shut it down.

That's even more reason to cool it to pre-industrial revolution temperatures. It is to hot now as are the oceans world wide.

agriculture in the uk and northern europe depends on the gulf stream being there and being warm.

 

if you kill the gulf stream by the method you are proposing then the UK and northern europe will get much much colder.

 

not only that but equatorial regions will get much much hotter.

You are incorrect it is to warm now! It is the warming of the gulfstream that will shut it down as it will melt more polar ice thus slowing it down.

again we come to the point, you need to redirect most of the gulfstream to have a decent impact. and then there is the climate disruption to the UK and europe

 

and the fact that its not economically feasible

Excuse me but I think what we are doing now climate wise to UK and Europe is not economically feasible. However, restoring the climate back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution is!

oh there will still be a general movement and you'll be changing the temperature of the water by quite a bit.

 

especially as you are reducing radiative emission from the surface leading to greater heat retention.

 

do you not remember the last thread you opened on this where we discussed the infeasibility of this project.

You can change the temperature quite a bit if you want to. But you can also regulate the temperature to anywhere between 70 and 90 degrees if needed from flow control valve TV-026. For instance computer modeling can tell us how much cooling is needed to weaken a hurricane prior to landfall or how much cooling is needed to restore the Northern Arctic ice during the summer.

if you suck stuff out the bottom and dump it on the top then you will end up with the stuff on the top moving downwards.

But not below the 1200 foot level where you suck from.

The point is that "heat rises" is the wrong answer, as it ignores the underlying principle being applied. If you force warm surface water down, it will heat the water below the surface. "Heat rises" isn't some magic "get out of thermodynamics free" card.

They are not forcing warm water down they are mixing cold and warm water near the surface thus lowering the net average temperature of the surface water.

That's a result of laws, but isn't itself a fundamental law of nature and can't be used to supplant one, such as conservation of energy. For example, if you heat water from around 0ºC to 4 ºC, the warm water will sink and the cold water will rise.

But then again we are not talking temperatures anywhere near that now are we with the tunnels?

OTEC combined with Gulf stream. Yes for energy production. I doubt about global climate influence.

Correct the Tunnels can also be combined with OTEC.

Just have the colder waters exiting the tunnels flow over OTEC condensers.

If you move cold water up, warm water must go down, yes?

 

The warmest water is at the top already... so radiation back to space is already at its maximum in the current situation. If you move cold water up, you reduce radiation, and you heat up the lower parts of the ocean.

They only move colder water from 1200 feet to mix at the surface so the water that is deeper than that stays as cold as we all know that heat rises. Radiation may be reduced but more of it can get out to space because you cooled the oceans surface with them which will cause less water vapor to form allowing more radiative heat to escape.Not as much heat will get trapped by the number one greenhouse gas which is water vapor thus allowing the planet cool again.They also remove other greenhouse gasses such as Co2,Methane and Nitrous oxide since they eliminate the fossil fuels that we burn for electrical power. They can produce an enormous amount hydro electrical power from the Kinetic Energy in the flowing 6mph current of the Gulfstream.

Then why didn't you say that until post #10?

 

Anyway, you cannot cool the planet by pumping cold water to the top of the ocean (if that's the plan). What would happen to the bottom of the ocean? (Hint: it heats up). And that completely ruins the gulf stream which powers your contraption in the first place.

Nope! It won't heat up because heat rises.Why do you think the ocean bottom is so cool to begin with? It isn't only because the sun doesn't penetrate that deep.Also,they allow for more heat to radiate back to space.

Cyclonebuster, first you ask how the videos can be explained mathematically.

Then I answer the question.

And then you respond by saying "correct"??

 

What is this? A test? You switch from being the one who asks the question to the one who approves of the answer... it's a little strange.

Anyway, I already have a masters in engineering - I do not need to take tests anymore.

 

Now I'm slightly confused with the topic of the thread. Do you just want to advertise your youtube videos?

Negative. I just want to show the world how to cool our planet back off to what it was prior to the industrial revolution if we feel the need to do so.

The mathematical explanation you're looking for is called "Bernoulli's law" or "Bernoulli's principle".

Correct and also Pascals law of hydraulics is also involved:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/WindTunnel/Activities/Pascals_principle.html

As well as conservation of mass energy:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mass.html

Are you proposing that this system can be used to generate power?

 

Chris

Correct power also.

Can the videos be explained mathematically?

 

 

How do you like the Wonderware computer graphic I made?

Surface tension effects can significantly alter the boiling point of a liquid; the effect is dependent on the radius of curvature of the drop.

However, for the vapour pressure to drop below the atmospheric pressure on the moon, the radius of the "drop" would be much smaller than a water molecule.

 

There is no liquid water on the moon- it would evaporate instantly.

The Moons Goldilocks zone? Where the sun keeps the water below the surface a liquid from its heat and is locked to the soil by way of surface tension. Not to deep and not to shallow. A location where the sun is just peaking over the horizon even though the moon is tidally locked to Earth, it still has a horizon just as Gliese 581D and G does.

The triple point pressure of water is 611.73 pascal. The atmospheric pressure on the Moon is 2 to 3 ×10^-10 pascal. It is physically impossible for liquid water to exist anywhere on the surface of the Moon, Cyclonebuster.

How about below the surface where surface tension can hold it there?

There is not no possibility to exist a life on the surface of the Moon.

There are two possibility.

One comes from the Earth, the other one comes from the other area in the Solar system.

I suggest that first one is more reasonable.

The materials in the earth can escape from the Earth to space by using volcanic eruption, asteroid ,comet collision or hi altitude atmosphere microorganism.

Most of them are come back to the Earth, but some of them can escape from the Earth.

In the past scientist said the escaped life from the earth is not impossible to live.

But recently the bacteria which in the salt crystal and the fungi which lives in the very radiative environment are discovered.

And there are many asteroids which contain water in our solar system.

So we can not say some of these asteroids not collided with the Moon before.

This is only a possibility.

I can only think of one word that explains what you are saying. Panspermia is it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

The Moon essentially has no atmosphere. Water cannot exist on the Moon except in those deep, never-lit craters at the Moon's poles.

How do you know that liquid water can't exist in craters that are lit some of the time? Are there any craters like that on the moon? If so how many of them are there? How do you know that surface tension of the regolith can't hold liquid water below the surface?

There is no liquid water on or in the Moon. There is water ice in never-sunlit craters near the Moon's South Pole and a tiny amount of H₂O bound up in chemicals away from the poles. Regarding the water ice in those craters: The reason that ice exists in those craters is because essentially no energy reaches the bottoms of those craters. The bottoms of those craters are very, very cold, about -300 F.

 

There is no life on the Moon, and that is a good thing. It means that the Moon is free from constraints and it is ours to use.

How do you know it doesn't exist in sunlit craters also?

I would say highly unlikely. I can't say impossible, but I think the lack of heat and substantial atmosphere of any kind would make the formation of life highly unlikely. The moon's temperature might have been high enough to form cyanobacteria, but without an atmosphere this wouldn't work out.

Does it need an atmosphere when when it is underground or underwater, still plenty of heat on the surface baking it to a few meters in depth I suppose?

What you think Possible or not Possible?

http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=27767