Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/30/07, Esa Ruoho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/06/water_vortex_drives_power_plan.html >> The diameter of the vortex basin is 5 meters. >> The head - difference between the two water levels - is 1.6 meters. >> >> The turbine produced 50.000 kw/h in its first year of operation. >> >> Construction cost was 57.000 Euro >> >> >> >> Works out to about $13.48 per W capital cost. > > Expensive, but without the generator it is a work of art. What a > beautiful thing. If the turbine were mounted only on underwater > structures it would still be artful. The overhead wood structure for > the generator makes it ugly. If built only for aeration then an > underwater mounted set of Venturi tubes, or a slotted cone, might be > artfully achieved, maybe along with some integrated sculpture. > > That structure with turbine is easily adapted to driving an underwater > pump for water lifts for irrigation.
Come on Horace, perhaps you're being a bit sensitive. Personally what I consider being civilized is seeking truth and logic. Being brief should not be an insult.
I was brief because of our last encounter, in which you assumed error in my sentence. Fact is my sentence did not contain enough information to make such a determination, and therefore you should have asked. Although, I'll have you know that a well respected on full time Vo member sent me a private email stating that he believed my interpretation was correct. Furthermore, you made some other scientific statements which IMHO were clearly incorrect, but you would not address those issue even though I asked several times.
Anyhow, that's all water under the bridge. Regards, Paul Lowrance
