new hydro electric development

What I am about to present to you may be a bit obtuse, but if you spend a bit of time and apply a bit of grey matter, your science will help you
understand what I am about to explain. But it will take a little work. Just a little. This is why I seek electronics engineers, that are more likely to understand this science.
The human race is in trouble. We are trying desperately to replace an enormous industry with many that even together could never fill the need. Here comes everyone's favorite part, the math. Compute how many jewels of energy we use in the United States in our trucks, trains, and automobiles, then do an estimation of just how much wind it would take to replace this need. Wind speeds on this planet entirely will not replace the lost energy when fossil fuels deplete in the US alone. Now, do the same math with solar. Its even worse. Everyone I speak to about solar and wind power talk about heat and light for our homes. When I ask about transportation, the knowledgeable become silent. They are well aware of the limitations of their science. If this scares you, it should. The human race is facing one of the greatest challenges of all time. Too many people, and not enough energy. But those with scientific backgrounds based on true R&D mindsets will prevail.
Most people are not aware that our 'modern' hydro sciences were developed by Nicola Tesla and George Westinghouse back at the turn of the century. Take a look at our machines in the 1900s, then imagine any mechanical science frozen in this state. This is exactly what happened with our hydro science. You all know how important efficiencies are. You are also aware that energy can not be destroyed. If 100 joules goes into a device 100 must come out in some way, shape, or form. How much of that energy gets applied to your mission determines the efficiency. Here is the important part that started me on my mission two years ago. Our 'modern' hydro facilities function below 15% efficiency. I was shocked to learn that, however when I studied this closer it became obvious why this was. What I did not get for a while was what impact a 70% efficient device would have on the science of electrical power generation, as well as mankind. At first I concentrated on how much electrical energy we would have on this planet if we could achieve this at present locations. The new numbers we exhilarating. But, as I said, I missed the most important issue. Our poor efficiencies in this industry had negated the vast majority of natural elevated water sources on the planet. Looking at this, I realized that this was the answer to mans energy needs forever, as long as the sun shines and nature allows man his time on her planet. Will this access us to electric transportation? Yes. The numbers guarantee that. This is not theory.
I patented this year a device that uses water to drive machinery to generate electricity without accelerating the waters mass, and without changing its chemical makeup what so ever. The weakness in the old science was in the fact that they were accelerating an uncompressable mass. Any attempt to insert energy removing devices into the flow would decelerate the mass causing a decay in the entire system. So they had to greatly limit how much they interfered with the flow. The 15% poor efficiency was the price, and to people who still used whale oil and wood back in the development, it didn't matter.
If you are skeptical, and I imagine there is at least a bit, I understand. But keep your skepticism in check for a minute or two and take a look at this. You will not be disappointed. If you need more information, I would be happy to discuss further with you the science. Just use the contact info below.
My name is Timothy Gard, my email is snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.net, and my cell phone number is 716-560-7289. I can not put into words the excitement I have about this development. If you would like to be kept up to date on this new science, let me know and I will try to do so. Also, if you know of anyone whom you think might be interested in this, feel free to forward this letter to them also.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/25/07 9:57 AM, in article 3eydnYpbJo-AU3zYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.com, "Tim Gard"

I am turned off without reading further. -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Intersting. What are you afraid Salmon Egg? Does my prose scare you? Writing was never my strong point. Maybe you should stick to poetry ...
Tim
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/25/07 7:04 PM, in article IuWdnTVwS6-h03_YnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.com, "Tim Gard"

Reading boring stuff was never my strong point. Only the opportunity to make a snide remark gives me any motivation to respond.
Bill -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wow. Thats intelligent.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> Our 'modern' hydro facilities function below

this
was
electrical
Wrong, of course. A hydraulic turbine is more than 95% efficient, coupled to a generator that's more than 98% efficient. What on earth were you studying?
Hydro is not the (sole) answer for fossil fuel replacement. The low-hanging fruit has all been gathered (especially in Europe) though there's still commerically viable hydro developments possible in Asia, and even in North America. But this is not going to add a lot of energy to the mix. Hydropower doesn't adapt especially well to transportation, aside from electric railways.
And it's "joules", by the way....proof reading is very important.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your numbers are not from head to tail. Numbers make liars and liars make numbers Bill. Its a double edged sword. Investigate this as I have and you will see what I mean. Or you could simply go about clucking loudly and miss a great opportunity. I am not expecting you to take my word, simply open your rusty mind and do some simple research. Just don't be plugging in answers before you are done or your conclusion will be tainted. A warning however. If you have a bunch of bucks sunk into solar panels or windmills, the truth will leave a real bad taste in your mouth.. Suck it up. Do some homework boy!
And by the way, showing the importance of doing your homework, joules was how I spelled it, you were looking at someone elses post. But we've all been wrong before ... except maybe you Bill...
Tim Gard

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

------------- Bill's numbers are correct. Head to tail is meaningless unless you define the head and tail- which you haven't . Now, just how do you get the 15% figure?. The hydraulic efficiency is based on the conversion efficiency of the whole hydraulic system -from forebay to tailrace-not just the turbine itself and is in excess of 90% for large units. Even a cobbled together home built unit can achieve 70%.
Rather than being abusive, give your basis for your numbers and your claims. So far you haven't even tried. That won't do. (yes, I can handle the engineering)
P.S. you initially said "jewels" and later corrected it.
--

Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Have not defined head to tail. Hmmm. This is black or white. But I haven't defined what white is. OK.
Definition; If one cubic foot of water stands one foot in elevation, its static energy is one foot pound. Thats what head to tail means as I have ever seen it discussed. I apologise if you have heard it used some other way than actual science.
I got that 15% figure from the engineers at the Niagara Power project. Maybe you should contact them and tell them they are wrong? Just make damn sure you ask for head to tail efficiency. Ah, the one described above, not the one used in wind mill sales school.
I can only explain the process, I can not think for you. But, if you would like to investigate this further, my email is snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.net. Send me an email and I will add you to my list of people interested in the science. I will explain it step by step and try to answer any questions you might have. And seriously Don, I would be happy to discuss this with you. As long as you will be honest. And maybe you can teach me a thing or two. I.m open to intelligent conversation. I have no problem dueling with you though Don, and you can even accuse me of being ignorant, but I will respond with the same respect shown me. But I kinda like a good fight now and then Don, it keeps me on my toes, so lets go!
OK. I will give you the jewells error. I depend a lot on spell check, but that one would have gotten by me. I wasn't concerned about encountering anyone anal enough to complain. I'll try to be more careful for you. But only because it is not worth taking the time to look up! ~;>P But proof reading, being an ex-printer, *is* very important. However proper research is much, *much* more important. Truth must prevail, no matter how much pain it causes, because lies are painful forever, even after the liars death.
Tim Gard

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Send me

science.
might
As
two. I.m

though
Oh, we don't have to do that for you.
but I will respond with

Don,
proper
In Netnews, your credibility is severely damaged by bad presentation.
Bill S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip.

You need to go back and do some more 'learning'. Hydro plants are not this inefficient. If anything, I would say their *losses* run about 15% (85% of the energy in the water is successfully converted to electricity). Others have posted similar nonsense and been soundly rebuted with many references. Let's not drag through all that again.
And what makes you think the sciences of hydrodynamics, fluidics and electrical power generation have been 'static' for the past 100 years?
<snip>
daestrom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK Daestrom, let me see if I can explain this to you.
Mass in motion has kinetic energy within it. If water going into a sealed pipe, like the ones feeding the turbines, comes out as fast as it went in, then it must still contain the same kinetic energy. If it doesn't come out as fast as it goes in, then the conduits would explode, because as everyone knows, water can not be compressed. So, if the water comes out as fast as it went in, how could they possibly have removed the kinetic energy?
How much kinetic energy is in this water? Well, imagine a cubic foot of water which weighs about 60 pounds, traveling at 40 miles per hour, hitting you in the chest. Would it hurt? Ahhh ... ya.
The 'improvements' you speak of amount to basically changes in the generators, some cavitation work, and some structural improvements. The only output improvement had to do with cavitation, and that was a meager 1 or 2%..
I seem to remember some very educated people claiming Columbus was a fool for thinking the earth was round. You any relation to those friends of Columbus? Do your homework on Tesla and Westinghouse. I know this hurts you wind mill guys, but we are all in trouble if we think wind mills or solar panels are going to pull our bacon out of the fire.
And by the way, an engineer with a closed mind is a maintenance mechanic. But I have seen some pretty sharp maintenance mechanics. Like my brother.
<If anything, I would say their *losses* run about 15%
'You' would say?? Gawd, it must be right then daestrom!!
Sell any wind mills lately?
Tim Gard

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You really are stuck in a rut aren't you? Consider if the piping has a convergent nozzle on the outlet, converting flow energy (i.e. pressure) into kinetic energy. Then the runner in the turbine extracts the high kinetic energy, leaving just enough kinetic energy so the water can exit the turbine via the tailrace or drafttube.
If the pipe is 8 ft diameter along the length, but narrows to a nozzle with only 2 ft diameter at the outlet, I'd say the velocity of the water at the nozzle outlet must be 16 times higher than the water flowing into the 8 ft diameter pipe. That would be about about 256 times more kinetic energy at the outlet nozzle then at the inlet. This increase in kinetic energy isn't magic, its easily calculated from the energy equation for fluid flow, just go look it up.

Except the velocity in the penstock piping is no where near 40 mph. More like 8-10. Very high and the viscous friction losses reduce the pressure available at the nozzle. And that's a bad thing. That is the major reason why the penstocks feeding a hydro project are so much larger in diameter than the turbine inlets. You don't want to convert water pressure into viscous friction, you want to have as much pressure as possible available at the turbine nozzle.

Nope. Computer designed runners, variable pitch controls with variable shape vanes. These are fluid mechanics that provide for high efficiency with a widely varying flow rate. Computer designed shapes for runners and analysis of the fluid streams entering/exiting to minimize turbulence.

Why don't you go pick up a good book on fluid mechanics? Here, try one of these...
"Elementary Fluid Mechanics, 6th" Vennard & Street, Wiley publishing "Fluid Mechanics" Bober and Kenyon, also Wiley publishing
These are just a couple of references that I use every week working with 'turbomachinery'. It's apparent you have completely neglected all the terms in the general energy equation for fluid flow besides the kinetic energy term. For shame...

And your lack of scientific/engineering skills shows that our educational system is sorely lacking. *THAT* is what is going to destroy us.

And a mechanic that doesn't bother to research existing systems (look at any modern hydro projects flow/performance numbers) and only cares about one term in the general energy equation is *NOT* an engineer. Hence, you're just plain wrong and won't even bother doing some independent checking of your 'facts'.

Look at KE+PE at the inlet to the penstock, then look at KE+PE at the tailrace. KE is a small fraction of the total for many hydro projects such as Niagara Falls. Or don't you know what potential energy is??
Look up the flow rate, head and power output of a real hydro project. Get back to us with the numbers to prove your point. We await with 'bated breath'. Until then, you're all wet.
daestrom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Gard wrote:

[snip]
We might have to sell the crown joules to pay for all of this!
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ha! There it is by Gawd! I heard this evil miscommunication was out there! Don was right!!
If it wasn't for you and Don there may have been *thousands* of people spelling joules wrong Paul!! Wat' a Guy!! ~;>P
Want to joust with some serious stuff now Paul?? Come on man, you chicken??
Tim Gard

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Gard wrote:

Give me a minute. When I've really got my dander up, I think I'll take on top posting!!!

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Excellent!!
Tim Gard

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Paul? Did I scare you off, or are you thinkin? I'm glad to hear you still have your hair by the way. Usually its all wore down by scratchin with you egg heads. I know, I'm an impatient SOB.
Come on, its you P.E. guys I'm after ... P.E. Thats Phys Ed, isn't it Paul? ~;>P Ah Haa'aa!!
(Hey, some of my best friends were gym teachers!)
Tim Gard

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.