Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 1/ The tunnels prevent the gulfstream from stopping as it is stopping now due to the heating as it says in the articles.The tunnels cool the gulfstream which has the reverse effect and allows it to speed back up! 2/ Correct and that is what fossil fuels are doing now to the gulfstream. They are warming the planet and causing it to slow. This will cause major disruptions to global weather patterns while at the same time allow the corals to die due to coral bleaching. 3/ Maas migration will not occur if we restore the gulfstream to that of pre-industrial revolution conditions.
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 1/ tunnels will slow the gulf stream down, and as you want to bring the water to the surface in order to cool it , it will have the effect of stopping it entirely. they will not speed up the gulf stream at all. 2/ but there is a chance it can be averted, your solution does for sure. 3/ that won't happen with what you propose.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 In any case, shifting heat around on the planet's surface does nothing to solve the problem of there being more thermal energy brought in than emitted. There's still the greenhouse effect to contend with. Besides, you will not lower the global mean temperature, just the temperature in a few locations. The heat does not vanish magically -- you're just redistributing it.
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 capn, by stopping the gulf stream(which is what would happen) he's actually preventing the redistribution of heat on a larger scale and focussing solely on a local redistribution.
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 capn, by stopping the gulf stream(which is what would happen) he's actually preventing the redistribution of heat on a larger scale and focussing solely on a local redistribution. Read the articles that is not what would happen on a cooling Earth. The stream would speed up not slow down. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIn any case, shifting heat around on the planet's surface does nothing to solve the problem of there being more thermal energy brought in than emitted. There's still the greenhouse effect to contend with. Besides, you will not lower the global mean temperature, just the temperature in a few locations. The heat does not vanish magically -- you're just redistributing it. Since the tunnels also produce an enormous amount of hydroelectrical power from the KE in the gulfstream in cooling phase or non-cooling phase this helps to reduce the greenhouse effect since we would no longer need fossil fuels to generate electrical power along the Eastern seaboard.They can produce 13 trillion joules every 7 seconds.
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 you want to speed up the gulf stream but you want to force it through giant tunnels (which will cause immense viscous drage forces) AND you want to extract eenergy from its motion. have you been listening? your disrupting one of the main cooling systems of the planet, not only that but what you want to do with it is paradoxical. do you want to speed it up or extract energy from it? either way there will be potentially catastrophic variances in weather patterns. not only that but you completely ignore the CAUSE of the heating. you aren't treating that so the earth will continue to heat up. can you really not see the constant paradoxes you're throwing up?
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 Place these inside the venturi section of the tunnel and you can get more energy from them! http://coet.fau.edu/?p=pilot
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) no, you won't. you can't extract energy AND increase flow. these are exact opposite scenarios. Edited September 17, 2009 by insane_alien
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 no, you won't. you can't extract energy AND increase flow. these are exact opposite scenarios. If you narrow the opening by 1/4 the area the velocity increases.
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 yes, but when it exits the tube the velocity will decrease drastically. the end result is you end up with a lower volumetric flowrate than before you put in the tunnels. you either put energy into the system to speed up the flow of water or you take energy out the system by slowing the flow of water. you can't do both.
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 yes, but when it exits the tube the velocity will decrease drastically. the end result is you end up with a lower volumetric flowrate than before you put in the tunnels. you either put energy into the system to speed up the flow of water or you take energy out the system by slowing the flow of water. you can't do both. The energy is already there in the gulfstream. Once it exits the tunnel it will speed back up because of the gulfstream flow that bypasses the tunnel on the outside. The only things slowing the water down inside the tunnel is friction,the two 45 degree bends and the traveling screens which is nill because the tunnels are short and fat.
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 there are so many ways i can explain this to you. i'm going to make it as simple as possible. you have a current or water, you put a big massive barrier in its way(the pipes), you take a lot of energy out of the flow, the flow slows down. it isn't going to go at the same speed it was before the barrier. it just isn't going to happen. i don't get why you can see this. especially with your point of trying to increase the velocity of the gulf stream. to use an analogy, say the gulf stream is a car. you are suggesting we speed up by putting the brakes on. see how this seems like a really bad idea for speeding it up? thats because it is. same thing in your proposal except the car slowing down has more severe consequences than just the car gets slower. kind of like in the movie speed., the bus slows down and KABOOM! people die.
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 there are so many ways i can explain this to you. i'm going to make it as simple as possible. you have a current or water, you put a big massive barrier in its way(the pipes), you take a lot of energy out of the flow, the flow slows down. it isn't going to go at the same speed it was before the barrier. it just isn't going to happen. i don't get why you can see this. especially with your point of trying to increase the velocity of the gulf stream. to use an analogy, say the gulf stream is a car. you are suggesting we speed up by putting the brakes on. see how this seems like a really bad idea for speeding it up? thats because it is. same thing in your proposal except the car slowing down has more severe consequences than just the car gets slower. kind of like in the movie speed., the bus slows down and KABOOM! people die. So lets say it slows down 50 percent. All you do is build 50 percent more tunnels. -1
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 that will only result in it becoming even slower. are you being intentionally obtuse?
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 How about quitting the name calling and lets stick to the issues. The articles clearly state the stream is slowing because of the warming climate. All the water that enters the tunnels will exit the tunnels unless you blocked it off which I am not proposing here.Even if you did block it off the water would just go around them.There is plenty of room for the water to go elsewhere.
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 i never called you any names. and yes, all the water that enters them will come out the otherside but that doesn't change the fact that it will slow the current down. you can't avoid it. but you seem determined just to wave it off (even saying that the stream will get faster without you putting more energy in). there isn't much more to say and this is just degenerating into you saying 'it'll work' and me repeating the reasons i have gave for why it won't. there isn't anything left to say, you have been give plenty of reasons for why this won't work at all like you think it will but you haven't came up with a single arguement to support your claims. its ridiculous.
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 i never called you any names. and yes, all the water that enters them will come out the otherside but that doesn't change the fact that it will slow the current down. you can't avoid it. but you seem determined just to wave it off (even saying that the stream will get faster without you putting more energy in). there isn't much more to say and this is just degenerating into you saying 'it'll work' and me repeating the reasons i have gave for why it won't. there isn't anything left to say, you have been give plenty of reasons for why this won't work at all like you think it will but you haven't came up with a single arguement to support your claims. its ridiculous. You implied it by asking the question. Look at the video and you will see the red food coloring exiting the installed venturi at the exit. It comes out slower yes but it speeds back up once it enters back into the current. You can see it clearly in the video. The forces that create the gulfstream current in the first place are still there and so the water will speed back up again. Meanwhile we just tapped that KE for good use.
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 it will not speed back up to its origional speed though. because as it speeds up by viscous mixing with the rest of the stream it slows the rest of the stream down. not only that but the rest of the stream has been slowed down by viscous friction with the outside of the tunnels. and the fact you are extracting energy in the form of electricity just worsens the problem. and you expect this to increase the speed of the current? it really is ridiculous. this is why i asked if you are being deliberatly obtuse as it is quite inconcievable that you are unable to understand what is being said. you haven't even got a consistent idea first you want to cool down a massive volume of water, then it turns out you want to speed up the gulf stream and then you introduce generating energy from it as well. heres what you should do before you post again. 1/draft a consistent and coherent idea 2/think about what i have said to you in this thread 3/ rethink your idea 4/ redraft it. 5/ make a post. because so far i haven't seen anything other than 'it'll work it'll work' and if thats the limit of your arguements then its pointless as your not going to listen to anyone.
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 it will not speed back up to its origional speed though. because as it speeds up by viscous mixing with the rest of the stream it slows the rest of the stream down. not only that but the rest of the stream has been slowed down by viscous friction with the outside of the tunnels. and the fact you are extracting energy in the form of electricity just worsens the problem. and you expect this to increase the speed of the current? it really is ridiculous. this is why i asked if you are being deliberatly obtuse as it is quite inconcievable that you are unable to understand what is being said. you haven't even got a consistent idea first you want to cool down a massive volume of water, then it turns out you want to speed up the gulf stream and then you introduce generating energy from it as well. heres what you should do before you post again. 1/draft a consistent and coherent idea 2/think about what i have said to you in this thread 3/ rethink your idea 4/ redraft it. 5/ make a post. because so far i haven't seen anything other than 'it'll work it'll work' and if thats the limit of your arguements then its pointless as your not going to listen to anyone. Then why don't the 10s of thousands of ships crossing the gulfstream daily slowing the gulfstream down. Don't you think if that was happening the environmentalsits would be screaming " Your slowing the gulfstream down"? It speeds back up again that's why you have the whole Earth acting upon it! -1
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 well, with regards to the tens of thousands of ships, 1/ the have nowhere near the surface area of the pipes being proposed here. your proposal would cause several orders of magnitude more drag than all the ships in the world combined. 2/ the ships are not anchored to the sea floor so have a much smaller drag force 3/ there are just as many ships going in the other direction which cancels out the effect. read my post above. follow the advice. maybe learn something.
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 because you are just handwaving the reasons why it won't work away and going it works it works it works. your arguements(if you can even call them that) would be considered crap even by politicians standards.
Cyclonebuster Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) well, with regards to the tens of thousands of ships, 1/ the have nowhere near the surface area of the pipes being proposed here. your proposal would cause several orders of magnitude more drag than all the ships in the world combined. 2/ the ships are not anchored to the sea floor so have a much smaller drag force 3/ there are just as many ships going in the other direction which cancels out the effect. read my post above. follow the advice. maybe learn something. I am sure there are more than a few thousand ships world wide!LOL! I am sure the props create more drag!LOL! even if they are going in the other direction the drag from the props are still there.lol! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo tell me Mr.Insane_Alien how is it that it doesn't work in the case of our shipping but with the tunnels its does? You saw the video and it works. I didn't see the velocity of the stream I set it in slow down any. Did you? Edited September 17, 2009 by Cyclonebuster Consecutive posts merged.
insane_alien Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 you were the one who said 10's of thousands. so the lol is on you mate. you obviously don't understand basic physics(or even mathematic or logical arguement) you're being moronic. grow up and prove to me that there is something resembling intelligence on your side of the arguement.
Recommended Posts