How To Restore Arctic Sea Ice Mass

[cyclonebuster]

Not here to spam or sell the idea but I am here to explain how the idea works to restore Northern Arctic Sea Ice mass and extent and reverse the damage done by fossil fuel GHG's.

They can restore many bad effects that GHG's cause and I will be glad to discuss each and every one of them with you to help you understand how and why they work for us and not against us and why we need them so desperately.

Patent Pending

[FloridaJohn]

What is the pressure drop through the uplift pipe?

[cyclonebuster]

What is the pressure drop through the uplift pipe?

Depends on where we set the inlet depth/elevation in relation to the outlet depth/elevation. Since the pipes diameter is so wide frictional losses are nil over the entire length.. Actually the pressure rises throughout the pipes length.....

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Curious, how much energy output are you expecting to generate off from this design? 6mph doesn't seem like much force to generate a feasible economical amount. I'm not bashing the thought concept, just want you to elaborate more on the process and the physical numbers behind this.

[cyclonebuster]

Curious, how much energy output are you expecting to generate off from this design? 6mph doesn't seem like much force. I'm not bashing the thought concept, just want you to elaborate more on the process and the physical numbers behind this.

Actually,the velocity increases at the turbine as it is set in a venturi section where its flow increases to around 23 mph. Decrease the area by 4 then velocity increases by 4.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Actually,the velocity increases at the turbine as it is set in a venturi section where its flow increases to around 20 mph.

Which would make sense because of the decrease in diameter. But what about the turbulent flow that would result at the T joint, wouldn't that cause some flow issues? because I'm assuming the gulf stream velocity is faster at the greater depth compared to the shallower inlet.

[cyclonebuster]

Which would make sense because of the decrease in diameter. But what about the turbulent flow that would result at the T joint, wouldn't that cause some flow issues? because I'm assuming the gulf stream velocity is faster at the greater depth compared to the shallower inlet.

Nothing is free there are losses in efficiency.However the concept works. Sometimes you have to work with what is given you.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Nothing is free there are losses in efficiency.However the concept works. Sometimes you have to work with what is given you.

Well if you have the financial and the scientific backing with the patents, get it done! At least you are trying to solve problems instead of adding to them.

[cyclonebuster]

Well if you have the financial and the scientific backing with the patents, get it done! At least you are trying to solve problems instead of adding to them.

Thanks. And you are right about solving the problems. They solve all the problems caused by GHG's of which we have no control over what they do to climate. This idea lets us control the climate and allows us to place it back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution if we need to or anyplace in between then and now simply by regulating gulfstream SST's. Computer modeling will verify what I say about them.

[FloridaJohn]

What diameter pipe do you think you would use?

[A-L-E-K]

patent pending

[LakeEffectKing]

Poor fishies.......

[Amped]

In other words "Tunnels"!

[cyclonebuster]

Poor fishies.......

Structures or artificial reefs hold more fish. Traveling screen's and wash header protect and return fish to the ocean. Lower carbonic acid levels stimulate more coral growth which allow fish populations to grow.Shells on shellfish grow thicker instead of thinner. SST's return to normal values prior to industrial revolution. Summertime Arctic Ice values are restored to normal levels prior to industrial revolution.

[cyclonebuster]

In other words "Tunnels"!

Or as Dr.Hugh Willouhby at FIU calls them "Scoops"..

[cyclonebuster]

This was before I told Dr. Willoughby about the generation phase of the concept which makes the idea work beautifully and pays for itself over a few years of operation.

quote:

Yes, I have spoken with Patrick, and, yes, a scheme somewhat like the one he describes could weaken hurricanes threatening places like Miami that have strong western-margin currents just offshore. There are, however, numerous qualifications.

The scheme that we discussed involved an array of several rows devices across the Gulfstream. Each device would be a rectangular duct 140 m long and 10 by 14 m in cross section. Normally the devices would be moored horizontally at a depth of 100m with their long axes aligned with the current flow. They would be nearly neutrally buoyant. When a hurricane approached, ballast at the downstream end of the channel would be released, allowing the device to float up to a 45 deg angle. Cold water entering the upstream end would flow up to the surface and mix with the warmer water there. Since the mixture would be negatively buoyant, it would sink. But mixing due to several (3-10) lines of these devices could cool the surface waters of the Gulfstream by 1-2C, enough to weaken an Andrew-like hurricane from category 5 to category 3. A rough calculation indicates that a device every 100 m on each line of moorings (~1000 devices per ~100 km line) and 3-10 lines of moorings would be required. My guess is that it would cost $250K to fabricate and deploy a single device, but there might be economies of scale. One might also be able to optimize the size and spacing of the devices.

Let's say that careful calculation told us that 4 lines of 1000 devices each would do the trick. At $0.25M per device, the cost works out to 4*1000*($0.25M) = $1000M. The actual cost might range from a few hundred million to a small multiple of a (US = 1000M) billion. One would want to do a detailed simulation before defining the scope of the project, but the basic notion is conversion of some of the kinetic energy of the Gulfstream into gravitational potential energy of the mixed water column. Again, I've not done that detailed simulation, only back-of-the-envelope calculations.

Activation of the array would require accurate forecasting since it would take several days for the effect to make its way from south of the Dry Tortugas (optimum location for protecting the maximum amount of shoreline) to the landfall point.

South Florida gets hit by a category 4 or 5 hurricane at every few years, but the really damaging ones like Andrew tend to be once-a-generation events, or less frequent. The array would need to be deployed and maintained for a long time between activations that actually safeguard property, although false alarms would not be particularly costly. Annual maintenance could easily exceed 10% of initial deployment cost. Bear in mind that Key West to Jacksonville is the only stretch of US coastline where this strategy would work. The other vulnerable sites, Houston-Galveston and New Orleans, lack the necessary strong offshore currents. While Georgia and the Carolinas also experience many hurricane landfalls and have the Gulfstream offshore, most of these cyclones are already weakening because of vertical shear of the horizontal wind so that a second installation north of Jacksonville would be much less useful.

There has been a lot of talk about using wave and current energy to cool the ocean ahead of hurricanes. My general conclusion is that while these ideas might be made to work, the proponents underestimate the scope of the required effort, as well as the political will and recurring cost necessary to keep the project going in the long intervals between really damaging hurricanes. Skeptic that I am, I think that wiser land-use policy and more rigorous building standards are much more cost-effective and more politically feasible. A proof-of-concept that might entail deploying a half dozen devices has some appeal, but I think that there are more promising ways to spend disaster-prevention money.

Best regards,

Hugh Willoughby

http://www2.fiu.edu/~geology/Content/People/Faculty/willoughby.htm

[FloridaJohn]

Well, I see Mr. Cylconebuster has been banned. However, as crazy as it might sound, I actually took a little time and did some rough calculations on this idea. It intuitively seems that there is no way this thing would work, but not wanting to jump to conclusions, I decided to see how something like this would work. Bottom line, though, is there is no way this will work (I know, no surprise there).

However, I just didn't want to say it wouldn't work and leave it at that, so I thought I would explain why I thought it won't work. Originally, I thought I would give my reasons and let cyclonebuster tell me where I am wrong, since I had to make quite a few assumptions. I did, though, learn a few interesting things about the Gulf Stream, so it is not a total loss. I should point out that the reason this peaked my curiosity is that I am a hydraulic engineer. I work with petroleum hydraulics, not water, but the physics behind fluid flow is the same.

Earlier I had asked what the pressure drop through the pipe was, because I believe ultimately that is going to be the downfall of this scheme. I also differ with the characterization that the pressure drop is so minimal as to not be worth worrying about. Personally, I think it is the single largest problem with this design.

Cyclonebuster posted a letter from Dr. Willoughby, (who I will point out is an expert in hurricanes, not mechanics) that did at least contain some physical dimensions that I could use for the calculations. I'm not sure that those dimensions are what is planned, but they are close enough to prove my point.

First up, is the pressure drop through the pipe. Although Dr. Willoughby used a rectangular cross-section, I modeled the pipe as a circular cross section. A 10 by 14 m rectangular cross section has the same area as a 49 inch circular pipe.

Next, is the velocity of the water. Using cyclonebuster's Gulf Stream water speed of 6 mph (which is a little optomistic, but more on that later), and a density of salt water of 1027 kg/m^3, I calculate a theoretical flow rate through the pipe of 51,372 gallons/minute. Intuitively, that seems too much flow for a 49 inch diameter pipe, but I didn't really look any further into it for reasons that will be clear in a minute.

The length of the pipe is said to be 140 meters (or 42 feet) by Dr. Willoughby, and I assumed that it would be made from concrete. The material is important because it determines the roughness of the inside wall of the pipe wall. There are smoother materials out there, but I'm not sure they would withstand the rigors of the open ocean.

Using all of those data points, I calculated the pressure drop of the flow through the pipe as 78 psi. Granted, that is not a huge amount, but it is not insignificant, either.

But that isn't the only pressure drop. A 42 foot pipe at a 45 degree angle is about 30 feet below the surface of the water. So not only do you have to push the water against the resistance of the piping, but you need to lift it up against gravity. Lifting the water up 30 feet will take another 13 or so psi. Adding that to the above number, and you get a pressure loss of around 91 psi. Let's just round it off to 100 psi.

Now, you still have a few other losses to account for. I didn't do any specific calculations on them, but it is possible to do it if someone wanted to. You will have additional pressure loss everytime you change the direction of the water. So, based on your drawing, you have two 45 degree fittings, and one 90 degree fitting. Just an off-the-top of my head estimate, but you can easily have another 100 psi of pressure drop just to move the fluid through those fittings.

Next up, is the venturi, which although it does speed up the fluid, it comes at a price (nothing is free). The flow rate varies with the square root of the pressure difference, so a 4 times flow rate is roughly 16 times pressure differential. So if we need 100 psi to push the water through the pipe, then it is 1600 psi to push it through the nozzle of the venturi. I will say, though, that I see no reason at all to have the venturi even in the circuit. It does nothing but add to the inefficiency of the system. That pressure would be better used to turn the generator than to speed up the water.

Now our total pressure drop is 1600+100+100 = 1800 psi. This does not include the force required to turn the turbine of the power generator. Generally, though, the more electricity you want to produce, the more pressure is required. This could easily be another 1000 psi, but it all depends on the design of the generator, and I have no information on that at all. But you don't get something for free and it takes energy to turn the turbine, and that means pressure in a fluid system.

So, having gone through all these calculations, a case can easily be made that my assumptions result in a much too high pressure drop. That could be true (but I don't think so), but it does lead up to the biggest problem with the design; how do you get the water to go in the pipe?

Any fluid (gas or liquid) will always take the path of least resistance. So if a packet of water comes up to the pipe, it can either use it's energy to generate 1800 psi (or more), or it can just move around the entrance to the pipe and continue along it's merry way. This effect works this way regardless of how much pressure drop there is, so theoretically, if there is only 1 psi of pressure drop, then the water will avoid going up the pipe. But we know there will be much more than 1 psi, making it that much harder for it to work.

Also, getting the water to do this much work is going to raise the temperature of the water. Most likely by the time the water leaves the generator, it is going to be warmer than the surface temperature of the water, totally negating the cool water aspect of the whole plan.

So, in reality, all my calculations were a waste of time, unless you have some way of forcing the water into the pipe. The only way to do that is with a dam of some sort. But since the Gulf Stream is not really contained by any land, like a river or stream is, it will be very difficult to build a dam that could contain the Gulf Stream. No matter how big you made it, it would just work it's way a little further out into the Atlantic ocean before heading north again.

Another problem I found when doing some research for this, is that the Gulf Stream is fastest towards the surface, like in this chart:

One thing you will notice about the graph, is no where is the speed as fast as 6 mph (that would be about 2.7 m/s). Most of the charts I ran across online seem to show that the maximum average speed is around 2 m/s (or about 4.5 mph). The slower speed does reduce the amount of pressure drop, but it also reduces the amount of energy available, too.

The other problem I found as it relates to this idea (assuming you could come up with a way to force the water into the pipe to begin with), is that the cold water is at the bottom of the Gulf Stream, where the velocity of the water is the slowest, like in this graph:

I believe those are degrees C in the chart. But that really brings up the biggest problem with this idea. If you need high speed water to get this to work, then you need to be in the upper warm water. If your goal is to bring the cold water up to the top, then you don't have any energy to work with. The coldest water still moving in the Gulf Stream is at a depth of about 700 meters. At that depth, the temperature is only around 15 degrees C (59 degrees F). That really isn't that cold, only about 10 degrees C less than the surface. However, at that depth, the water is only flowing about 10% of the speed up at the surface.

Going deeper will only make the problems with pressure drop worse. That 42 foot long pipe only goes down 30 feet, to get a pipe that would reach 700 meters would be much, much longer, with much, much more pressure drop. Plus the weight of the water would be more, too, only adding to the problem.

Really, the only "practical" way to get cold water to the surface is to put a pump down there. But that will take energy generated somehow on the surface, which at this point in time would be through convential methods, which means more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Of course, if you are just going to pump up cold water, then it doesn't need to be done in the Gulf Stream, and can be done anywhere there is cold water and a power plant.

If there is anything I wrote that is incorrect (including my assumptions), let me know, especially if it changes how things would work. I wrote this lengthly post because if cyclosbuster is out looking for funding, then these are the type of issues his potential investors will be bringing up, and he needs to be prepared for it. Hopefully, I didn't bore anyone too much.

The moral of this story is that you don't get anything for free, including from the Gulf Stream.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Florida John :clap:

[SVT450R]

He was on a roll i figured it was going to happen.

[Jonger]

Building a land extention off the coast of NE Greenland would prove more effective, so would a surface blockade anchored to the sea floor bedrock.

[Mallow]

...

The length of the pipe is said to be 140 meters (or 42 feet) by Dr. Willoughby, and I assumed that it would be made from concrete. The material is important because it determines the roughness of the inside wall of the pipe wall. There are smoother materials out there, but I'm not sure they would withstand the rigors of the open ocean.

...

140 meters is about 460 ft.

Still, I don't think that changes your main point...

[FloridaJohn]

140 meters is about 460 ft.

Still, I don't think that changes your main point...

Whoops, you're right.

In that case, the pressure drop would actually be larger than I listed.

[Vergent]

Building a land extention off the coast of NE Greenland would prove more effective, so would a surface blockade anchored to the sea floor bedrock.

You seem to be stuck on a impossible idea. This is science fiction. It would take millions of shiploads of material to do this. It is a task 10,000 times bigger than blocking the Bering strait.

The MYI will be gone long before such a project could be started.

[FloridaJohn]

Due to my innaccurate conversion between meters and feet on the pipe length (I had divided when I should have multiplied), I decided to re-run the numbers.

So the pipe is still 140 meters long, but now that means it is 459 feet long. At a 45° angle down, it will extend to a depth of 325 feet (100 meters). BTW, I am rounding out the numbers here, they aren't exact. They're exact in my calculations, though.

Now, the pressure drop though the pipe is 840 psi. That is just the pressure it takes to push the water through the pipe. In other words, if you had one pressure gauge on the inlet of the pipe, and one on the outlet, the inlet gauge would read 840 psi, and the outlet gauge would read 0 psi. Water would be flowing through the pipe.

The pressure required to lift the water up 325 feet is now 145 psi.

Total pressure drop is now 985 psi. Add to that the pressure drop to make the turns in the pipe, and the pressure drop to turn the turbine. That is easily more than 2000 psi total to make the water do what is required.

Also, at that depth, the water is only traveling about 0.9 m/s (about 2.25 mph). The slower water speed drops the total pressure drop to 263 psi. Better, but like I said earlier, it doesn't make it any easier to push the water up the pipe.

I haven't quite figured out what the purpose of the top, horizontal pipe is. One advantage of it (theoretically) is that it can remain near the surface where the high-speed water is, but that does nothing for the lower pipe. With a difference in flow rate between the horizontal pipe and the lower pipe, that will only work to prevent the lower pipe from bringing up any cold water. I suppose (one again, theoretically) you could add a venturi at the joint between the two pipes and use that to create a suction to help pull up the water from below. But that is not very efficient, and does nothing to solve the problem of how you are actually going to force the water into the pipes.

So, in summary, my corrected calculations now show an even high pressure required to push the water through the pipes, but does nothing to change the fact that the water will not flow through the pipes at all.

OK, I feel better now.

[Amped]

What exaclty is moving water going to do for the arctic. Are you trying to flush the GS out of the arctic circle? Just build a wall and block out the Atlantic and pacific.

Or you could dump trillions of gallons of milk into the ocean to make the surface white. Both Ideas are retarded.

Was Cyclonebuster, the same as Cyclonekiller AKA Tunnels?

[Mallow]

What exaclty is moving water going to do for the arctic. Are you trying to flush the GS out of the arctic circle? Just build a wall and block out the Atlantic and pacific.

Or you could dump trillions of gallons of milk into the ocean to make the surface white. Both Ideas are retarded.

Was Cyclonebuster, the same as Cyclonekiller AKA Tunnels?

Ding ding ding.

[Amped]

Ding ding ding.

He was being a little more respectful this time. Just a general crappy poster like Bricktamland. I would have just 5 posted him.

[friedmators]

Due to my innaccurate conversion between meters and feet on the pipe length (I had divided when I should have multiplied), I decided to re-run the numbers.

So the pipe is still 140 meters long, but now that means it is 459 feet long. At a 45° angle down, it will extend to a depth of 325 feet (100 meters). BTW, I am rounding out the numbers here, they aren't exact. They're exact in my calculations, though.

Now, the pressure drop though the pipe is 840 psi. That is just the pressure it takes to push the water through the pipe. In other words, if you had one pressure gauge on the inlet of the pipe, and one on the outlet, the inlet gauge would read 840 psi, and the outlet gauge would read 0 psi. Water would be flowing through the pipe.

The pressure required to lift the water up 325 feet is now 145 psi.

Total pressure drop is now 985 psi. Add to that the pressure drop to make the turns in the pipe, and the pressure drop to turn the turbine. That is easily more than 2000 psi total to make the water do what is required.

Also, at that depth, the water is only traveling about 0.9 m/s (about 2.25 mph). The slower water speed drops the total pressure drop to 263 psi. Better, but like I said earlier, it doesn't make it any easier to push the water up the pipe.

I haven't quite figured out what the purpose of the top, horizontal pipe is. One advantage of it (theoretically) is that it can remain near the surface where the high-speed water is, but that does nothing for the lower pipe. With a difference in flow rate between the horizontal pipe and the lower pipe, that will only work to prevent the lower pipe from bringing up any cold water. I suppose (one again, theoretically) you could add a venturi at the joint between the two pipes and use that to create a suction to help pull up the water from below. But that is not very efficient, and does nothing to solve the problem of how you are actually going to force the water into the pipes.

So, in summary, my corrected calculations now show an even high pressure required to push the water through the pipes, but does nothing to change the fact that the water will not flow through the pipes at all.

OK, I feel better now.

pipe diameter suffered from conversion error as well i think

[N. OF PIKE]

wasn't there a nasa paper published that shows aerosols were most influential ...i.e responsible for warming at mid and high latitudes. And in the paper the study mentioned two aerosols especially whose effects have led to NET warming of the globe..... 1. dramatic increase in black carbons emitted mainly out of asia (which trap heat) and dramatic reduction of cooling aerosols (thanks US and europe) due to tougher emissins which may make air healthier to breathe but block cooling aerosols (burned from coal and oil) . i was on my mobile but the study was conducted by drew shindell .

too bad china is the economic engine for growth

[Jonger]

You seem to be stuck on a impossible idea. This is science fiction. It would take millions of shiploads of material to do this. It is a task 10,000 times bigger than blocking the Bering strait.

The MYI will be gone long before such a project could be started.

I wouldn't even attempt to fill in the strait, I would just build a surface barrier and attach it to the floor, you can't stop the water flow beneith the ice for obvious reasons.