This EZ-water hypothesis of Dr. Pollack et al. has recently spawned many infinitely improbable, but nevertheless potentially valid (no obvious hitchs) ideas for improving water-based devices already in service: the main one of interest today being the hydroelectric dam.
This specific 'angle' which has been explored to a limited degree in a few older patents is based on the capillary (wick) effect and on increasing the effective head of a hydroelectric dam. Obviously increasing the head at a dam would be of little benefit if it could not be accomplished using less energy than normal pumping. Also only a fraction of the water flow could be channeled this way, as the throughput of such a system is far less than optimum for flood control. But it is not an 'either/or' situation, and if a means is provided to increase the output for a fraction of the flow, that is valuable since all dams represent an already 'sunk' cost. Plus, there is the dual advantage of using the higher effective tensile strength of EZ water to increase the flow rate to the venturi of a ultra high velocity Pelton wheel, and then prior to impact with the wheel to increase the flow rate through an energy-feedback arrangement. Given that doubling of the rpm of a generator with the same torque can produce a sixfold increase in power, this could be a useful addition to most dams. All that needs to be done is to 'augment' gravity by feeding back some of the electrical energy produced. (more on that later). I should mention that this type of electrical "feed-back" for the purpose of increasing the net output is almost, but not quite, an alien concept to hydroelectric. In the long history of 'perpmo' devices, many have considered variations of the wick-effect to raise water against gravity. If 100 ft redwood trees can do it, so the argument goes, then why not an engineered system? the main problem is low flow rate, excruciatingly low, and prior to about 2005, the very low value of a kWhr of electrical power in the USA. The result was that you could not just 'super-size' it back then. All of that has changed now, since the oil crisis has not only tripled the price of coal and natural gas, but raised raised the cost of a kWhr considerably (which is averaged with lower cost power) - plus - there is reason to believe that mass-produced capillary tubing with thousands of channels can be extruded or roll-formed, from the cheaper polymers such as polypropylene to give a flow rate which makes the system look pretty good with today's economic realities. An unanswered question, relative to maximizing the use of EZ-water is: will a very large percentage of the water which is raised against gravity this way- immediately be "structured" in-transit, or will that nearly full structuring require additional 'growth' time? If the bulk of the water raised is structured by the few dozen seconds of contact within the capillary tube (some added mechanical pumping can be used to augment the low natural flow in a hybrid arrangement), then the EZ-water which emerges will have several times more (effective) tensile strength than bulk water, and this will allow a number of additional features to be added to the 'down' portion - or generator-side of the device. All of this requires careful study first. The main purpose of this posting is simply to put the basic idea for this kind of system out there into the public domain, with the hope that some bureaucrat engineer in the hydro-industry, somewhere like maybe TVA or WPPSS (whoops), will read this and take an interest. Yes, even in the entrenched power bureaucracy there are probably a handful of lurking creative 'trouble-makers' willing to take a risk in todays new high-priced-energy economy. I suspect that there are many good ideas out there -- languishing now, which have been written-off back when economic realities were very different. Plus one thing which is worth mentioning is that most of the year, maybe 9-10 months of a year, the flow rate through any dam is far lower than the peak rate, and the peak rate is already provided for in the sunk cost. So if one can make the add-on cost look good with only its own overhead to cover, then much of the average flow rate can be converted this way. The end result could possibly be substantial and applicable to huncreds of dams, thereby substituting for tens of billions of dollars of additional nuclear capacity - so this is definitely worth pursuing. Needless to say, my services are available (for a modest consulting fee) to push this concept along through the Dam-bureaucracy, which is no-doubt slower for advancing good ideas than capillary action itself. Damn the torpedoes of the bureaucracy, full speed ahead! Jones
