neuro wrote:I really do not understand what is the point.
(sorry I didn't look at the video)
The fact that there is a stream implies that at equal depth there is a between point and point .
Thus, transferring water from point to point releases energy which you can use to make work in many many ways (the simplest one might be a screw/propeller).
As for moving water from depth(1) to depth(2) in water there is no need for Pascal or Bernoulli, as Archimede is sufficient to tell you that you have done no work.
Still, in your videos there might be some unexpected surprise I cannot dream of...
I'd appreciate your pointing that out without videos
Lincoln wrote:Two terawatts of energy is a helluva lot of energy. Patent it! (Or look more deeply into it to see why this form of energy hasn't yet been exploited. Given the mercenary mindset of companies, this must be more expensive than current energy methods.
Lincoln wrote:The amount of kinetic energy doesn't change with the decrease in the tube. The velocity increases by a factor of four due to the area reduction.
The answer to the question comes from figuring out how you capture the energy. You would need to work out how to have a 100 x 100 foot wall of turbines, figure out how many of them, how fast they turn, etc. Assume for the moment that you have 100% efficiency for conversion of rotation to electrical power. (I say that not because 100% is reasonable, but because I don't know the right number and it's an upper bound.)
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests