I've already invested time and energy seeking angel funding for him. What have you done?
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:11 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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: >> >> >>
