If anyone is interested in the state of the art in atmospheric vortex research, see:
http://www.issres.net/journal/index.php/cfdl/article/view/114/71 The conflation of issues raised by ChemE are so well established by both theory and observation as to render speculations about "dark energy" utterly unnecessary. Ockham would spin in his grave at the mention. Some of the thermodynamics relevant to power generation: http://vortexengine.ca/cfd.shtml A doctoral dissertation that appears based on an inadequate turbulent/laminar model: http://vortexengine.ca/cfd/Diwakar_Natarajan_Thesis_Chp5.pdf On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just because it is called a water spout doesn't mean it is a column of > liquid water. Its a colloquialism. > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:46 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> That model(below) you referenced is a plume of smoke rising and a CFD >> simulation of an air vortex. I do not see where it discusses the >> thermodynamics of vacuum evaporating water over an ocean or vacuum >> condensing water vapor in the atmosphere or hydraulically lifting tons of >> water into the atmosphere. Maybe I missed something? Nature is much more >> impressive. I understand air flowing from hot to cold and from high >> pressure to low. >> >> [image: LM-3 model] >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Atmospheric vortex physics is well-enough established that the frontier >>> of research is in modeling turbulent vs laminar transitions in with enough >>> accuracy to write the CFD codes required to model the economics of the >>> Atmospheric Vortex Engine. >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57184.html >>> >>> Toward that end Peter Thiel's Breakout Labs has put up money to build a >>> medium scale version of the Atmospheric Vortex Engine so as to refine the >>> model. >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74271.html >>> >>> There are no major unknowns about the energy balance of these systems. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:01 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Mark, >>>> >>>> Thanks, they mention 10 m/s or about 22 MPH lift, which is reasonable >>>> and about half of what I eyeballed from that waterspout, which disagrees >>>> with what Wilkipedia and Brittanica have published. >>>> They also mention it is slightly warmer in the center which makes sense >>>> to me. In order to vacuum condense water vapor you have to REMOVE heat >>>> from the water vapor (Heat of Vaporization). >>>> The interesting thing to me is that usually a gas increases in pressure >>>> when it is warmer and yet the center of the eye remains 1-10 mb LOWER >>>> pressure, just like a hurricane maintains a "warm eye" and yet the pressure >>>> is much lower than atmospheric pressure in the center >>>> >>>> They do not really answer WHY in that article but I agree with their >>>> data and it still appears to me that a string of vacuum energy could >>>> explain what maintains the disturbance. The vacuum energy would extract >>>> entropy from the surrounding gas, triggering the condensing. >>>> >>>> Stewart >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> *Curious what others think about that water moving up in the spout >>>>>> as it crosses onto land. I don't think the humidity changes that much so >>>>>> I >>>>>> do not think it is due to a change in condensing (which would be vacuum >>>>>> condensing anyway) I know how much horsepower it takes to pump water >>>>>> that >>>>>> high and air can't do that...* >>>>>> >>>>> See >>>>> http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493(1977)105%3C0725%3AWWTAPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2 >>>>> >>>>> [mg] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
