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 <jabow...@gmail.com> 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 <cheme...@gmail.com> 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 <jabow...@gmail.com> 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/vortex-l@eskimo.com/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/vortex-l@eskimo.com/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 <cheme...@gmail.com> 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 <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >
