Maybe we have inadvertently found where all the WMD are hidden?
----- Original Message -----
From: "RC Macaulay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: Cavitation paper from Farzan Amini
Jed,
Shades of the old S.Morgan Smith Company of York, Pa. The
technology came from the Czechs, passed to Peltin Water Wheel
Company. Smith had the technology and passed it on the
Allis-Chalmers, The Japanese built upon it.
Amini doesn't give the details but I can almost guess what
happened and why. Brings back days of yesteryear.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:38 AM
Subject: Cavitation paper from Farzan Amini
Getting back to the original ORIGINAL purpose of this
discussion group . . . An engineer named Farzan Amini
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) sent me a short paper on cavitation effects
at a hydroelectric dam where he works, in Iraq. The English in
this paper needs some editing, and I think the paper needs
another page or so of text to explain what the author has in
mind, but it looks promising. I may upload it after some more
work has been done on it, but for now, anyone interested in
this subject should contact me for a copy.
Attached is the title and abstract.
- Jed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Production Method for Violent TCB Jet Plasma from Cavity
Farzan Amini
Nuclear Engineer(MSc.) .Mechanical Engineer(BSc.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Introduction
One of the hydropower plants in our country has 4 Francis
turbines so that two units on the right way(looking downstream)
share a common penstock and a common long tailrace tunnel and
other two units on the left also share a penstock and tailrace
tunnel. Upon commissioning of one unit, the hydraulic transient
in the draft tube during load rejection above 75% was
excessive. It was apparent that the guide vane closing law that
had been adopted would result in water column separation during
load rejection at full power. Tests with a slower closing rate
showed that the risk of column separation was reduced, but a
violent surge developed in the draft tube close to maximum over
speed. The measurement equipment in this experiment have a
sampling time of 0.01 sec.
The energy level and cavity volume that are produced are much
more than those of
regular TCB(Transients Cavitation Bubbles) experiments,
and therefore, we should expect more effects than the TCB jet.
