Michael, I'm not saying the production of microbubbles is a new idea. However, I'm not aware of any programme of testing of the behaviour of such bubbles in real waters from around the world. The key issue is residence time, and we simply don't know how that will be affected by the myriad types of waters which the technology could be deployed in. Whilst testing in canals and reservoirs under the pretext of reducing evaporation makes a lot of sense, any deployment at scale will be in the sea, and so testing seawater is logically a better test.
My suggestion is that by concocting a simple series of 'homebrew' experiments we can gather some really useful data which can help the modelling of this technology tremendously. I for one would not know whether the silty waters of the Thames estuary would make better microbubble waters than the bright green biologically active water of Portsmouth harbour. Do you have any data which could answer this question, without recourse to an experiement? An experiment should settle the matter. Furthermore, an experiment would raise public awareness of, and interest in geoengineering. It's not practical for school children to launch balloons into the stratosphere, but they could be very helpful in blowing bubbles into buckets of seawater with a bicycle pump. It may not be sexy, but my guess is it will be a good test to gather some crude raw data for later modelling. A On 21 April 2011 01:38, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrew, "Bright Water" is not a new concept. It was proposed as a means to > reduce hull drag some time ago. Funding is the issue!!!! > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andrew Lockley > <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi >> >> It seems to me that Brightwater is suitable for 'homebrew' testing, and >> indeed would greatly benefit from this work. Water bodies are very variable >> by salinity, choppiness, cloudiness, temperature, etc. >> >> Is it possible to create a set of standard tests which can be conducted by >> people to test BW in their local area? A bucket filled with seawater in >> California may behave very differently to a bucket of seawater in Scotland. >> >> I would imagine that it would be possible to test the idea using a 2 >> gallon bucket, a bicycle or car tyre pump, clock, standard diffuser nozzle >> and a ruler with a coin taped to it (for checking cloudiness). A colour- >> comparison chart may also be useful. Sure, these would be very basic >> results, but they would be very helpful if (for example) we discovered that >> water near river mouths was better than water from open ocean shorelines. >> I'm guessing that all the equipment that wasn't available in an average >> home would be able to be bought and posted for likely a lot less than 50 >> dollars. >> >> I may be offending the sensibilities of those with big labs and high >> standards, but my guess is we could quickly gain some very useful data on >> this with the participation of some people on this list, and maybe beyond. >> Who knows, maybe this could become a very popular experiment in schools and >> colleges? >> >> A >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > *Michael Hayes* > *360-708-4976* > http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
