By the way, the pesn article on AVE is utterly brain-dead. I tried to correct it last year but, of course, anyone with actual knowledge of the subject is banned.
The vortex's structure is maintained by the source of vorticity which is in the engine itself. Outside of the engine, the lack of vorticity destroy's the structure and it quickly becomes little more than an updraft. Vorticity is simple to understand: If you have a big circular pool of water that is still, there is no vorticity. If you rotate the pool of water about the center of the circle the body of water has vorticity. If you open a hole in the bottom center of the circle and let water drain out, the inward flowing water acts the way a skater that is spinning around does when drawing their arms inward -- the rotation rate increases. This is why you get a funnel shape and the vorticity becomes helicity. Tornadoes form when you have two bodies of air flowing past each other in opposite directions resulting in places where there is vorticity. If these form over places where there is a lot of heat content in the air close to the ground, the effect is the same as pulling the plug in the bottom of the pool, except its upward instead of downward force -- and you get the angular momentum forming a tornado that sucks the angular momentum in toward the center maintaining the structure. In an AVE there is no ambient vorticity -- it all comes from the AVE structure itself. Although only a few percent of the total tornado energy is required to be put into vorticity in order to maintain the chimney structure for the updraft, if you cut off the vorticity energy, the rest of the structure dissipates. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > This is the proposal I suggested to Michaud submit to Breakout Labs a year > ago almost to the day. This really is a huge deal: > > Atmospheric Vortex Engine > > EXECUTIVE SUMMARY > > Develop sufficient understanding of vortices with high Reynolds numbers, > such as tornadoes and hurricanes to allow investment in construction of > full scale Atmospheric Vortex Engines. This would be accomplished by > building a model AVE capable of generating an atmospheric vortex > approximately 100 meters high. Measurements made on this vortex would then > refine existing CFD models of vortices -- models which are surprisingly > untested for high Reynolds numbers. > > The CFD model, validated for high Reynolds number vortices, would then be > applied to the design of larger scale AVE’s to estimate their performance. > The economics full scale AVEs would then be evaluated and, if found > profitable, provide start of a business plan. > > > LONG TERM VISION STATEMENT > > 10 Peta Watts renewable baseload electrical generation with no pollution. > The global deployment of AVEs turns the Earth into a heat engine using > space for its heat sink. The work of these heat engines is turned into > electrical power by compact, high power turbines. > > Deploying AVEs in the tropical oceans would provide ocean settlements with > copious quantities of fresh water rain and electrical power while > controlling hurricanes. These settlements would reduce population > pressures while developing new options for voluntary experiments in the > social sciences that may prove useful in existing polities as well as > potential new space settlements. > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:48 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Atmospheric Vortex Engine creates tornadoes to generate electricity >>> http://www.gizmag.com/vortex-engine-tornadoes-electricity/25508/ >>> >>> Not to be classified as OT, Vortex was created illo tempora to >>> discuss CF-related subjects including the Griggs and the Potapov >>> machines. See also vortex tubes as kind of Maxwell machines, >>> real but of low efficiency. >>> >> >> *www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com*/?p=501&cpage=5 >> >> James *Bowery* <http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/> >> July 23rd, 2011 at 2:40 >> PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=5#comment-55946> >> >> I should clarify that when I say the *Atmospheric* Vortext *Engine* is >> “least capital intensive” I mean per installed power (ie: $/W). I’ll show >> the calculation for two cases where the exhaust temperature is a more >> conservative -30C and the capital cost is as currently estimated for the >> ambient heat case of $300/kW ( >> http://vortexengine.ca/PPP/AVEtec_Business_Case.pdf): >> >> 1) Ambient temperature of 20C Carnot efficiency: >> >> 17% = (293.15Kelvin-243.15Kelvin)/293.15Kelvin >> >> 2) E-Cat temperature of 300C Carnot efficiency: >> >> 57% = (573.15Kelvin-243.15Kelvin)/573.15Kelvin >> >> less than $100/kW = (17%/57%)*$300/kW >> >> That’s less than 10 cents an installed Watt capitalization. >> >> Nothing else comes close. >> James *Bowery* <http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/> >> July 23rd, 2011 at 1:01 >> PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=5#comment-55918> >> >> In areas with low peak annual winds, the least capital-intensive >> technology to turn E-Cat heat into baseload electricity is likely to be the >> *Atmospheric* *Vortex* *Engine* <http://vortexengine.ca/index.shtml>. >> With an exhaust temperature of nearly -60C, the Carnot efficiency can be >> very high with virtually no thermal pollution. >> > >
