>From NextBigFuture: GoatGuy<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> • 18 hours ago<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#comment-746370017>
- <http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> - **<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> Oh well... guess this one's worth chiming in. *First* - its nice to believe that the vortex would remain "attached" to the guidance tower. However, tornadoes and dust-devils are well known for "taking off" ... and traveling great distances. *Second* - the local weather would *definitely be changed* ... namely a lot of thermal cloud formation and spawning of man-made thunderclouds. Now, being a down-wind resident, I might not be so amused with an alarming number of cumulonimbus clouds ceaselessly coming my way. *Third* - then there's the opposite effect - the perception of "stealing my rain", for people outside the wet-shadow. Politically a can or worms. Reparations. Fees, fines, levies, levees (other kind). *Fourth* - and what about the "invisible vortexes", known as parasitic or scion vortexes ... that powerful cyclonic updraft-winds are WELL known to form? No condensation to make them visible ... easily "unhooked" from the main updraft stream ... and planes passing through? *Fifth* - noise? Tornadoes - from first-hand-across-the-field-experience ... are generally pretty noisy, whether "big" is defined as a loud one, or not. And we think wind-turbines are noisy. These could be real howling Tasmanian Devils. That's enough for now. *GoatGuy* 3 **<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> **<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> • Reply<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> • Share › - <http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> - <http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> - <http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#comment-746370017> - [image: Avatar]<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> James Bowery<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> ** GoatGuy<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#comment-746370017> • 29 minutes ago<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#comment-746880972> - −<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> - **<http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter-theil-funds-atmospheric-vortex.html#> Aside from the fact that this is a research project -- a research project that will provide facts as opposed to FUD speculations such as the above -- there are good reasons to believe the speculations are irrational. *First* - Tornadoes and dust-devils derive their stability from ambient atmospheric vorticity. Without the ambient vorticity the angular momentum soon decays and without the angular momentum the structure collapses into a mere updraft that, since it cannot avoid the turbulent regime, itself decays. The vorticity of the AVE is supplied by the AVE itself -- not ambient. *Second* - The energy scales are such that any "cumulonimbus clouds" would be a small fraction of what any rational person might consider even visually threatening. *Third* - For the same energy scale reasons, any effect on atmospheric moisture is likely to be very small in practice. *Fourth* - There is a difference between vortexes that have vorticity introduced at near-ground level vs higher altitude vorticity and that distinction is recognized by the phrase "dust-tube tornadoes" aka "landspouts". A characteristics of "landspouts" is that they are laminar and tend not to suffer from the Rayleigh-Taylor instability that produces parasitic vortexes. *Fifth* - Landspouts, like their aquatic cousins, waterspouts, are not notoriously noisy due to laminar flow. On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Calling this "tornado power" is less accurate than calling it "<a href=" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landspout";>landspout power</a>". > > A landspout's vorticity comes from close to the ground, unlike a tornado's > vorticity which comes from a higher altitude circular flow of air. > Landspouts are called that because they more resemble waterspouts that > appear frequently off the coast of southern Florida and are not notoriously > dangerous. > > Moreover, the flow regime is laminar. This is quite mysterious to many > atmospheric scientists since the Reynolds number of such a vortex is huge. > In the case of a vortex, however, a more useful metric is the Rayleigh > number. > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:41 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
