[cyclonebuster]

I made a Wonderware computer graphic of the Tunnel how do you like it?

[Moontanman]

cyclonebuster, on 02 May 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

I made a Wonderware computer graphic of the Tunnel how do you like it?

Pretty illustration (I'd like to have that program too) but can you explain how it works?

[cyclonebuster]

Moontanman, on 03 May 2011 - 06:19 AM, said:

Pretty illustration (I'd like to have that program too) but can you explain how it works?

Sure. The three way valve (TV-026) regulates the amount of cold water that is flowing through the tunnel thus cooling downstream sea surface temperatures in order to control the weather while at the same time the Kinetic Energy is extracted to supply electrical power to many customers thus reducing greenhouse gasses.

[The Polymath]

How much/in what way does this affect the weather?

[cyclonebuster]

The Polymath, on 12 May 2011 - 03:42 AM, said:

How much/in what way does this affect the weather?

Depends on how much you want to cool Sea Surface temperatures with them. You can easily restore the Northern Arctic Ice during the summer if you want to with them.

[The Polymath]

cyclonebuster, on 12 May 2011 - 11:28 AM, said:

Depends on how much you want to cool Sea Surface temperatures with them. You can easily restore the Northern Arctic Ice during the summer if you want to with them.

That is a lot of heat to move. Where would you move it to? Could you post the equations you used to determine how much it can effect the surface temperature?

[cyclonebuster]

The Polymath, on 12 May 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

That is a lot of heat to move. Where would you move it to? Could you post the equations you used to determine how much it can effect the surface temperature?

a lot of the heat would move back out to space since less water vapor would be made and thus there would be less cloud formation to trap that heat. The amount of heat would be variable based on what outlet temperature you would want to maintain downstream of the tunnels.

[The Polymath]

How did you conclude that enough heat would be radiated into space to cover the heat moved? Also, since the heat must first go into another body of water, it will produce water vapor. Could you post the math you did to come to the conclusions ou did?

[cyclonebuster]

The Polymath, on 12 May 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:

How did you conclude that enough heat would be radiated into space to cover the heat moved? Also, since the heat must first go into another body of water, it will produce water vapor. Could you post the math you did to come to the conclusions ou did?

Since the cold went into a warmer body of water and cooled it less vapor would be made.

[Essay]

cyclonebuster, on 12 May 2011 - 11:28 AM, said:

Depends on how much you want to cool Sea Surface temperatures with them. You can easily restore the Northern Arctic Ice during the summer if you want to with them.

CB, I like your way of thinking. I like how you solve several problems with a single solution; a synergized solution!

It looks good on paper, but I can't see how a current of 6 mph would maintain itself inside of a pipe, or maintain enough flow to raise water up above sea level, and especially enough flow to make up for the energy needed to build, maintain, and utilize that extensive structure... but i'm more of a biochemist than a fluid dynamics engineer.
And how could you transport enough water to change SST's, except maybe locally (did you say something about trying to make ice in the Arctic with hot Gulf Stream water)?

I keep wondering why they don't just tow icebergs to places where they need cool, fresh water... for irrigation; since there do seem to be more icebergs available these days. Speaking of ice... the cold, dense salty water that sinks under newly forming sea ice might be a better, more unstoppable, source of energy. It could be used to turn turbines and run snow blowers at the surface above, which would help to increase the albedo and ice thickness in the Arctic.

~

[cyclonebuster]

Essay, on 13 May 2011 - 12:17 AM, said:

CB, I like your way of thinking. I like how you solve several problems with a single solution; a synergized solution!

It looks good on paper, but I can't see how a current of 6 mph would maintain itself inside of a pipe, or maintain enough flow to raise water up above sea level, and especially enough flow to make up for the energy needed to build, maintain, and utilize that extensive structure... but i'm more of a biochemist than a fluid dynamics engineer.
And how could you transport enough water to change SST's, except maybe locally (did you say something about trying to make ice in the Arctic with hot Gulf Stream water)?

I keep wondering why they don't just tow icebergs to places where they need cool, fresh water... for irrigation; since there do seem to be more icebergs available these days. Speaking of ice... the cold, dense salty water that sinks under newly forming sea ice might be a better, more unstoppable, source of energy. It could be used to turn turbines and run snow blowers at the surface above, which would help to increase the albedo and ice thickness in the Arctic.

~

Thanks Essay!

It is a pretty simple formula that creates the flow through the tunnel.Basically it looks like this. F1>F2=Flow.

Force 1 at tunnel inlet is greater than Force 2 at tunnel outlet. That is how the flow is created. If there were no flow in the Gulfstream then the differential across the tunnel would be zero.

[sanctus]

CB, but this formula looks a bit oversimplified to me... I mean from the kinetic energy in the stream entering the tunnel you need to take away the difference in potential energy needed to raise to the surface. This difference in potential energy is the WORK you have to put in (or better the stream has to give away). I don't know numbers entering here, but are you saying that the WORK needed is much smaller than the initial kinetic energy, so that you get a net gain? Did you do the calculations?

And if it is just smaller but not much, you would also have to consider all the energy you loose in the turbine (friction, heat, etc.)...

[cyclonebuster]

sanctus, on 13 May 2011 - 06:51 AM, said:

CB, but this formula looks a bit oversimplified to me... I mean from the kinetic energy in the stream entering the tunnel you need to take away the difference in potential energy needed to raise to the surface. This difference in potential energy is the WORK you have to put in (or better the stream has to give away). I don't know numbers entering here, but are you saying that the WORK needed is much smaller than the initial kinetic energy, so that you get a net gain? Did you do the calculations?

And if it is just smaller but not much, you would also have to consider all the energy you loose in the turbine (friction, heat, etc.)...

Correct the work needed is already in the flowing Gulfstream the net gain is already there. I just had to figure a way how to tap it.

[sanctus]

No, you did not understandm what I meant.

You loose some of the initial golf stream (kinetic) energy because you bring it up to the surface. My question is how much do you loose?

[cyclonebuster]

sanctus, on 13 May 2011 - 08:48 AM, said:

No, you did not understandm what I meant.

You loose some of the initial golf stream (kinetic) energy because you bring it up to the surface. My question is how much do you loose?

Just enough to make it come out of the tunnel about 5 mph. What do you get?