It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hydropower... is this idea feesable?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
df1

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
What you describing reminds me of .Hydraulic Ram Pumps. This has some good links.

Home-made Hydraulic Ram Pump




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Hydraulic pump ramps sound very interesting. And I'm sure that there design will help my idea develop. I like the way in there picture they have shown the head doesn't have to be in front of the pump.

Valhall, your right about the nozzle, and I understand why people say it won't work.

Well today I started Project CWT (continuous water turbine), deciding to make a model. I took a 500ml bottle and cut the bottom off. I tied plastic over the bottle opening, which faced down, and pushed through it a straw with a lump of blu tack. It was a poor model (worse than my pic...
), however I am pleased with the results thusfar.

Results:
a)Leaks reduce pressure in resevoir.
b)The straws did not allow me to begin the process with the initial sucking. Where I had tried extending them bu using three straws, the gaps could be seen to let air in.
c)My model is more advanced than my model, if my model would have worked I've have designed that.
d)Any future experiments are best done in a bath, I learnt the hard way so you don't have to (still soaked
)...

My skills have been shown up there, so I'm gonna focus on the mathematical side.

From my previous research I think we would need 2-3psi worth of pressure at point of contact with the turbine. Am I on the right lines if I use volume of water, pressure of gravity, surface area of reservoir, head, flow? Anything I'm missing.

Also improvements are still there to be discovered. I'm convinced that there is going to be a better type of liquid to use rather than water. Furthermore, I understand most peoples concern of needing to put in energy to pump the water. However how deep would the reservoir need to be to get a great enough effect from geo-thermal activity? I don't think the water needs to be boiled, but a little extra energy to keep it going could be the key


[edit on 2/3/06 by byhiniur]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Hydraulic Ram pumps are my answer to all the doubters.... surely that proves its possible.
Look at the pic on the link... now imagine the storage tank goin back into the reservoir. This would make it possible, fair enough, I didn't think of it... but why aren't we harnessing this free power.


apc

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The energy gained would be less than just letting the water source freefall onto a turbine. Except for the ram-air concept, you're talking the same as a fishtank vacuum. Suck all the crap off the bottom of the tank and into a bucket. The lower the bucket, the higher the pressure, but the pressure would always be equal to that of a straight tube coming out the side of the tank. So you might as well just put the turbine on the side of the tank.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Dont you mean "yes, you're right"



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I am sure a lot of questions are answerable within this link:
Statkraft

The Statkraft Group is the second largest producer of renewable energy in Europe.
You'll find info about Hydropower, Windpower, Gaspower, and even Salinitypower.

The last topic is still under development, but uses freshwater/saltwater osmosis!

Related Salinitypowerlink:
Salinitypower



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ulvetann
Related Salinitypowerlink:

This is how salinity power plants work
Salinity power plants can be built anywhere that fresh water meets salt water, such as at the outlets from existing hydroelectric power stations. The principle is that fresh water and salt water are channelled into a membrane module. The fresh water is transported through the membranes and over into the pressurised seawater. One of the properties of the membranes is that they transport water but not salt. The pressurised mixture of seawater and fresh water (brackish water) flows out of the module and into a hydropower turbine that generates electricity.
Salinitypower


The site seems to suggest we could have all our energy coming from rivers with a very limited effect on the environment (which renders everything I've been doin pretty minimal in the gand scheme of things; its the system we're in rather than the technology we have that will decide our fate).

Simplicity doesn't allow a price tag.




[edit on 2/3/06 by byhiniur]


apc

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
Dont you mean "yes, you're right"

No... I mean there is no need to siphon anything anywhere. Take away the siphon and all you're talking about are basic tried and true methods of hydroelectric power. Nothing new.

Hydroelectric is great and all, but you need a LOT of power plants to provide the energy output that fossil fuels generate. And hydro can't even begin to touch nuclear.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
ok, so if its already so freely available how come we aren't using it? I now understand that siphoning isn't gonna solve much quickly, but other things shown on this thread could.


apc

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Hydroelectric is used all over the place. Unfortunately to get any significant power output you need a lot of water, meaning you dam up a good sized river. Effective dams require certain criteria for the surrounding land, namely a large low lying area that is able to be destroyed (flooded).

Ram air requires energy to pump the air. Even if you used water pressure to pump the air, you're still back where you started with an equal flow of water.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Just another idea and don't wanna start a new thread, but why don't we send nuclear waste into space? Then we get round the problems of putting it somewhere it'll do the least damage. What do people think?


apc

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Moving trash from one place to another solves nothing. Now launching it all into the sun, that'd be nice. No risk of running into it later, there. It'd work rather well until one of the rockets exploded on launch.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I have an Idea, I didnt want to make a new post so ill post here.

There is no friction in space right? Everything keeps moving untill something stops it.

This is gonna sound crazy but, why not put turbines in outter space and wire the energy to Earth with incredibly long cables? The only problem with this that I can see, would be how to keep the turbine in space because the cables would pull it down. And the rotation of the Earth.

But the turbine would be able to make enough energy to power a motor that would keep it in space?

It would be like putting windmills in outter space and connecting them to earth with cables.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 2-3-2006 by Tasketo]


apc

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Generators use magnetic fields. The magnetic fields create drag.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo


1. centrigufal force can send the turbines flying off intot he unknown?
2. cost?
3. there is friction in space: gravity.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Moving rubbish from one place to another is bad... but its ok to send it to the sun.


Isn't this sending it into space? Point the space ship away from the world and send it whereever, why play with the sun... although if the spaceship explodes on takeoff it could mean widespread contamination.


Originally posted by Tasketo
There is no friction in space right? Everything keeps moving untill something stops it.

This is gonna sound crazy but, why not put turbines in outter space and wire the energy to Earth with incredibly long cables? The only problem with this that I can see, would be how to keep the turbine in space because the cables would pull it down. And the rotation of the Earth.

But the turbine would be able to make enough energy to power a motor that would keep it in space?

It would be like putting windmills in outter space and connecting them to earth with cables.


Space is not a complete vacuum, so although the problems created by friction would be lessened eventually it would be slowed. The energy could be transfered using microwaves rather than cables, avoiding those issues raised. However, by the time we've got into space, haven't we used more energy than this could hope to give back.

In the emptiness of space then whats going to power the turbine?

[edit on 3/3/06 by byhiniur]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
In the emptiness of space then whats going to power the turbine?


I guess, Tasketo wants us to send water into outer space too, to power the turbines!


I wonder why magnetic fields aren't more commonly used, regarding production of power. If having a magnet moving in a sylinder, or up and down a rod there should be possible to create static electrisity, since I am no technical wizard when it comes to chemistry, electricity or physics, I have no spesific data to refer to, but if an array of magnets and rods produces static electrisity, there surely are some means to transfer the produced electrisity into condensators. Of course, this is only a niche-product, not suitable to be compared to nuclearpower. I do believe it would be a cheap way of creating electricity, though.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 05:19 AM
link   

This same flawed explanation is displayed by the self-flowing flask (later known as the hydrostatic paradox). The larger weight on the left forces water down and around the narrow neck where the weight is less, and then it flows out the orifice at the top to replenish the water in the vase. The "paradox" was, that though this seemed perfectly reasonable to many persons, the darn thing just didn't work that way. In fact, it worked in accordance with another Aristotelian principle "water seeks its own level". The water levels were equal left and right, and stayed that way.
Source

The source is a good overview of the limitations of perpetual motion.

The problem with the original proposal is that the size of the reservoir could be massive, but it isn't going to cause more water to come out...
I'd still like to try though, remember the bumble bee.

I think hydropower should be renamed gravitational power... waters just the means, gravity is its cause.

[edit on 3/3/06 by byhiniur]


apc

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
Isn't this sending it into space? Point the space ship away from the world and send it whereever, why play with the sun... although if the spaceship explodes on takeoff it could mean widespread contamination.

Because the sun is a giant incinerator. Launching stuff off into deep space puts it out of our control and we cannot predict the exact outcome. It could come around and crash back into us in a hundred years. We could accidentally run into it while cruising around in our spaceships. The solution to waste management is not just find another place to put it. We must find a way to destroy it, and ideally, eliminate the creation of waste completely.



In the emptiness of space then whats going to power the turbine?

I think the implication was having someone walk out and give it a good spin and just letting it spin for all eternity. But the friction of the magnetic fields in the generator, the friction of the bearings for the driveshaft, Solar Wind, etc etc would all have a significant impact on such a device and bring it to a stop.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Thanks everyone for your contributions.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join