Nothing, I am waiting for a good LENR investment.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:36 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > I've already invested time and energy seeking angel funding for him. What > have you done? > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:11 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> I encourage you to invest your money in that thing. >> >> You can keep your colloquialisms. >> >> >> On Tuesday, July 2, 2013, James Bowery wrote: >> >>> If anyone is interested in the state of the art in atmospheric vortex >>> research, see: >>> >>> http://www.issres.net/journal/index.php/cfdl/article/view/114/71 >>> >>> The conflation of issues raised by ChemE are so well established by both >>> theory and observation as to render speculations about "dark energy" >>> utterly unnecessary. Ockham would spin in his grave at the mention. >>> >>> Some of the thermodynamics relevant to power generation: >>> >>> http://vortexengine.ca/cfd.shtml >>> >>> A doctoral dissertation that appears based on an inadequate >>> turbulent/laminar model: >>> >>> http://vortexengine.ca/cfd/Diwakar_Natarajan_Thesis_Chp5.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Just because it is called a water spout doesn't mean it is a column of >>> liquid water. Its a colloquialism. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:46 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> Jim, >>> >>> That model(below) you referenced is a plume of smoke rising and a CFD >>> simulation of an air vortex. I do not see where it discusses the >>> thermodynamics of vacuum evaporating water over an ocean or vacuum >>> condensing water vapor in the atmosphere or hydraulically lifting tons of >>> water into the atmosphere. Maybe I missed something? Nature is much more >>> impressive. I understand air flowing from hot to cold and from high >>> pressure to low. >>> >>> [image: LM-3 model] >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Atmospheric vortex physics is well-enough established that the frontier >>> of research is in modeling turbulent vs laminar transitions in with enough >>> accuracy to write the CFD codes required to model the economics of the >>> Atmospheric Vortex Engine. >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg57184.html >>> >>> Toward that end Peter Thiel's Breakout Labs has put up money to build a >>> medium scale version of the Atmospheric Vortex Engine so as to refine the >>> model. >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg74271.html >>> >>> There are no major unknowns about the energy balance of these systems. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:01 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> Mark, >>> >>> Thanks, they mention 10 m/s or about 22 MPH lift, which is reasonable >>> and about half of what I eyeballed from that waterspout, which disagrees >>> with what Wilkipedia and Brittanica have published. >>> They also mention it is slightly warmer in the center which makes sense >>> to me. In order to vacuum condense water vapor you have to REMOVE heat >>> from the water vapor (Heat of Vaporization). >>> The interesting thing to me is that usually a gas increases in pressure >>> when it is warmer and yet the center of the eye remains 1-10 mb LOWER >>> pressure, just like a hurricane maintains a "warm eye" and yet the pressure >>> is much lower than atmospheric pressure in the center >>> >>> They do not really answer WHY in that article but I agree with their >>> data and it still appears to me that a string of vacuum energy could >>> explain what maintains the disturbance. The vacuum energy would extract >>> entropy from the surrounding gas, triggering the condensing. >>> >>> Stewart >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >
