dlzc wrote:
Now you're being ridiculous. Slow the speed down to .1 ft/s and how large a pipe will you need? Or going with 100 smaller pipes, to get a flow of 88.4 ft^3/s at a velocity of .1 ft/s, you need a total flow area of 884 ft^2. Using '100 outbound' pipes as you suggest below, those pipes are 3.35 ft across (larger than the 1 m pipe I posited).
Nope. Using several small pipes instead of one large one increases the friction losses. Slowing the flow to 1/100th what I posited saves you losses by reducing to 1/10000, but then increasing the number of pipes to 100 raises it back up to about 2/1000 of what I was assuming.
And now you need 100 pipes, about 3.35ft diameter, 250 miles long, able to contain 60,000 psi. Congratulation, your pipe costs are now 100 times what I suggested.
This is *MUCH* different than the drill pipe used on ocean platforms. For goodness sakes, the high pressure piping used in the highest steam pressure power plants is only about 3-inches wall thickness. Yours needs to be five times as thick as this. Drill pipe wall thickness is less than 1 inch.
Where did you ever get the idea that the pipe thickness of drill pipe was comparable to 15 inches?
And that was my point. Slow it down to your speed of 0.1 ft/s and your construction costs are incredible. You couldn't afford even the interest on the debt.
No high pressure steam pipe in the world operates at even 20,000 psi, much less your 60,000 psi. (P.S. I've actually found steam leaks using brooms, but it was only 600 psi. A high-pressure drain trap cap blew out flexa-tellic gasket)
I'd like to see the specs on a pump that can achieve 60,000 psi at more than a milliliter per minute.
Engineering can't fix a poorly conceived use for hydraulic power. (I 'kinna change the laws of physics captn) Hydrogen piping would be vastly cheaper than this hydraulic idea (not that I'm in favor of H2).
daestrom
Now you're being ridiculous. Slow the speed down to .1 ft/s and how large a pipe will you need? Or going with 100 smaller pipes, to get a flow of 88.4 ft^3/s at a velocity of .1 ft/s, you need a total flow area of 884 ft^2. Using '100 outbound' pipes as you suggest below, those pipes are 3.35 ft across (larger than the 1 m pipe I posited).
Nope. Using several small pipes instead of one large one increases the friction losses. Slowing the flow to 1/100th what I posited saves you losses by reducing to 1/10000, but then increasing the number of pipes to 100 raises it back up to about 2/1000 of what I was assuming.
And now you need 100 pipes, about 3.35ft diameter, 250 miles long, able to contain 60,000 psi. Congratulation, your pipe costs are now 100 times what I suggested.
This is *MUCH* different than the drill pipe used on ocean platforms. For goodness sakes, the high pressure piping used in the highest steam pressure power plants is only about 3-inches wall thickness. Yours needs to be five times as thick as this. Drill pipe wall thickness is less than 1 inch.
Where did you ever get the idea that the pipe thickness of drill pipe was comparable to 15 inches?
And that was my point. Slow it down to your speed of 0.1 ft/s and your construction costs are incredible. You couldn't afford even the interest on the debt.
No high pressure steam pipe in the world operates at even 20,000 psi, much less your 60,000 psi. (P.S. I've actually found steam leaks using brooms, but it was only 600 psi. A high-pressure drain trap cap blew out flexa-tellic gasket)
I'd like to see the specs on a pump that can achieve 60,000 psi at more than a milliliter per minute.
Engineering can't fix a poorly conceived use for hydraulic power. (I 'kinna change the laws of physics captn) Hydrogen piping would be vastly cheaper than this hydraulic idea (not that I'm in favor of H2).
daestrom