On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > Keith: > I go through line by line - but deleting as much as I can. Mine all in > bold caps. > > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Keith Henson <hkeithhen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Ronal W. Larson > <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Keith: > > Again thanks > > Re- being able to make thicker ice in the Arctic - from the bottom, not the > top. > >> I don't see it being the bottom. The ocean is thousands of feet deep >> and I can't see making these thing more than a 100 feet, say 30 meters >> long. > > [RWL1: I am projecting only adding like a meter to ice that is already > (hypothetically) a meter thick - so it can get through a September > area/extent minimum. Most Arctic ice forms from the bottom - only a little > from falling snow. Asking Peter for more input here on best thickness > change projections.
I see, bottom of the ice layer, not bottom of the ocean. > I project something that can be thrown from a helicopter wherever an > opening crack appears. Only operates when there is already a little ice. That's a long way from how I modeled this. I figured starting with open water and freezing cylinders of ice in the 100 meter diameter range and that deep. They would drift into hexagonal aggregations that would be harder to overturn and perhaps thick enough to resist buckling from wind forces. Dropping anything from a helicopter runs the price up by an order of magnitude, at least. > This might work also to extend the area of Antarctic ice, keeping the > area/extent up for more months. By not deploying in some areas, you can > keep some transport lanes open. > > <Snip two> > > The Antarctic case seems a bit harder - with a need for stiffer, stronger > pipe. Any reason the floating Arctic unit couldn’t be made of a thinner > plastic and get closer to a $1 or so per foot (with a total of (?) less than > 10 feet?) > >> I doubt it. The floating versions have to stand a fair amount of >> pressure just from the water pressure on them. But no matter the >> cost, who is going to pay for them? Polar bears? > > [RWL2: I don’t get the “pressure” issue. These can be relatively > thick walled plastic, and the shape is appropriate for compression forces. > I don’t see much shear for floating ice a few meters thick. Again - Peter? The walls have to be thick enough to deal with the pressure of propane or ammonia at least. Then they have to resist the effects of a few atmospheres of water pressure on them at the bottom. Think of the wall thickness fraction as being at least that of a propane bottle you hook up to the grill. > >>> I hope you can find your earlier cost calculations. I think we have a >>> chicken and egg situation. The person finding the money (John Nissen?) will >>> have to have some cost calculations. > >> It would take a few days with a spreadsheet. I think I figured them >> out years ago on the basis of a 5 year ball of ice several hundred >> feet in diameter. But that's just the start of the complexity. The >> wind blows the ice around and in spite if being in the middle of some >> very hard ice, the heat pipes are going to get broken on a regular >> basis. > > Make a case that someone would pay for it and I can run off the calculation. > > Then again, you can probably ignore the hardware cost since the legal > expenses are likely to dominate. > > [RWL3: We have very different geometries in mind - as above, I am > hoping for diameters like yours , but only a thickness like a meter. I ask > Peter Flynn for support on whether this might seem possible. Re breakage, > that would be the purpose of some early testing. > I’m afraid in this game there are no design funds - all open source. Not concerned with getting paid for the design work, but it's pointless if nobody will ever pay for testing or deployment. Any ideas? Do you suppose "friends of the polar bears" might fund a test? snip > Your proposed diode will operate with the “hot” side always around 0 oC, and > the cold side dependent on the nighttime air temperature that (not looking > anything up) might average -30 or -40 oC. > > No, the hot end goes down to the lowest temperature of the air, less > relatively minor heat leakage. > > [RWL6: Not understanding. Ask for Peter Flynn’s help again. If you > are boiling a fluid at the bottom the thermal energy movement is upward. > Maybe we are not disagreeing - but the bottom “hot end" in a heat pipe sense > has to be a good bit warmer than the atmospheric above ground (condensing) > temperature to have heat transfer. That's not the case. Heat pipes have the capacity to move heat thousands of time better than the best metal conductors. I would be surprised to find more than a degree difference from the bottom of the pipe to the top. As the cold end gets colder, the pressure in the heat pipe decreases, which lowers the boiling point of the working fluid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe#Permafrost_cooling Keith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
