Re: Completely discredit H2-PV, PV-H2's claims on VAWT that can outperform any HAWT!!

On Feb 4, 4:17 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Exxon's *** Pumping Hanson's Mouth" <Global.Warm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:1170551809.221241.3550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Feb 3, 10:12 am, "daestrom" <daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<snip>
<snip>



You again fail to produce any math or valid statements. You just fling
turds like a monkey in a zoo.

Sprinkling vulgarities again I see.

<snip>

So you now you have air at a 'low' pressure but
high velocity inside your unit. If you extract some of its kinetic
energy,
then as it leaves the back side, how does travel through the divergent
'nozzle' on that side?

You are not particularly coherent in this paragraph. At no time or
place is there "low pressure" lower than current "ambient pressure" on
the windward face of the tower or inside the windward face.

Never said 'low pressure' on the windward face. I said the low pressure was
'inside your unit'. Since the velocity of the air increases as it enters
the unit, the pressure of the air would be lower (this is >100 year old
Bernoulli). Oh, but you don't think it will drop, you think it will rise as
the air flows into a constriction. That's against years of experimental
evidence.

Pressure
increases as wind is constricted than returns to ambient after the
constriction.

Gee, that statement seems to disagree with >100 years of physics. Every
text I've read on fluid mechanics says the pressure in the throat of a
convergent nozzle drops, not rises.

Try "Elementrary Fluid Mechanics" (Vennard&Street) chapter 3, Kinematics of
fluid motion.
Or "Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications" (Daugherty & Franzini)
chapter 4, Energy Considerations in Steady Flow.

A few experiments I did in fluid flow classes (years ago now) also seem to
support the theory that pressure drops as fluid flow cross-section
decreases. That's the basis for all sorts of flow measuring equipment as
well.



You are ignoring NEWTON. At no time do molecules of air cease to
exist. At one point they are concentrated to 1.8 times their density,
then they return to their prior density.

Such an increase in density/pressure is not possible with wind velocities
under discussion. Period. Even with a wind velocity of 17 m/s, the full
stagnation pressure is only about 173 Pa (~3.6 lbf / ft^2). Since full
stagnation pressure is the *highest* pressure you could achieve without
doing work on the fluid, it's clear you cannot get pressures/density
anywhere near 1.8 times higher than the inlet.

"Low pressure" is defined as
fewer air molecules than ambient pressure. It's a worse abuse of a
term than my using crankshaft instead of drive shaft which you
complained about.

You asked exactly, precisely, one question related to "force", which
is answered above.

No fool, I asked precisely one question related to power and energy. If
the
air speed is increased, where does the energy come from?

Ultimately the energy comes from the sun, or Jesus YHVH if you prefer.

Evasive. Still not an answer.



A air molecule at 70 degrees farenheit and zero mph speed is not empty
of energy. One at 0 degrees kelvin is empty of energy. An air molecule
at 70 degrees moving at 10 mph is not empty of energy.

Trivial statements that don't answer the question. Just blowing smoke.

When you
constrict air into a smaller volume a complex number of interdependent
things occur. Collisions occur more frequently because the density is
increased and the distances between molecules is smaller, plus there
are fewer gaps between molecules.

That all depends on how you constrict it. In a closed cylinder, yes. A
free-flowing stream is something different. When you constrict the flow
cross-section in a flowing stream, the density of the air does not rise.
Actually, the density goes down. This is basic >100 year old fluid flow.

You can babble about molecules getting closer together and pressure rising
all you want. But 100 years of experimental evidence shows that pressure
does *not* rise in the constriction placed in a flowing stream.

The sum of increased collisions is
oft expressed as heat increase, as collisions release photons of heat
energy easily observed and measured.

Collisions between molecules do not of themselves 'release photons'.
Collisions between molecules transfer heat directly. Simple kinetics
transfers kinetic energy from the faster traveling molecule to the slower
one (depending on exact angle of recoil). This is the principle of
conduction.

Molecules above absolute zero radiate photons spontaneously without
collisions. See 'thermal radiation' or 'black body radiation'.

Heat radiation energy moves at
the speed of light, not at the speed of wind, so the equalization of
heat energy is everywhere in the mass, not concentrated in one spot.

Compression of a fluid (gas or liquid) followed by decompression of
the fluid is the basis for air conditioning and refrigeration. Sorry
you are so technically illiterate that you have to ask.

Actually, if you knew very much about A/C, you'd know that most use
phase-changing cycles (reverse Rankine), not simple compression/expansion.
By compressing the working fluid, the boiling point is changed and a phase
change takes place in the condenser. Then the pressure on the liquid is
reduced to allow a reverse phase change in the evaporator. The latent-heat
of vaporization of most fluids provides for much higher amounts of heat to
be transferred for a given work of compression over simple
compression/expansion systems.

A few designs work by compressing/expanding a nearly ideal gas such as air.
This compression not only raises the pressure but also the temperature (in
case you didn't know, the amount of temperature rise for an adiabatic
compression is governed by the ratio of specific heats for the gas). The
compressed (and hotter) gas is cooled by conduction/convection in a
heat-exchanger and then expanded again. Because the expansion takes place
from a lower temperature than that were the compression discharged, the
final temperature of the expanded gas is cooler than the original state.
Some auto manufacturers toyed with this design in the '80's but found it not
very practical. The moisture in ambient air caused problems since it does
not behave like an 'ideal gas' and kept condensing out. The result was the
discharge air was too dry and the water caused problems in the expander.

Sorry you are so illiterate about thermodynamics and fluid flow systems.



Radiant energy is omnidirectional. Any travelling in a reverse
direction to the wind preheats molecules soon entering the process,
while any travelling in the direction of the wind adds heat to
molecules leaving the system.

Both motion and heat are classifiable under kinetic energy. Why would
a person subscribe to science groups who doesn't know this?

Another 'back handed' insult from someone that *still* hasn't answered the
question. It's apparent you're just dancing around throwing out BS trying
to avoid revealing your faults.

Neither atoms nor molecules have brains. They don't know what the
"pressure" is, or what it is "supposed to be". That includes all the
molecules in wind, tower, or windcatchers inside the tower. All they
"know" is their current energy quanta, and any direct impacting
forces.

The windcatchers don't know they are in tower instead of in the open
air. All they care about is the number per instant of impacts of
molecules on their surfaces and the speed of those molecules. If the
speed doubles, the impact force cubes.

'...the impact force cubes'??? Perhaps you mean that when the velocity
doubles the impact force goes up by a factor of 2 cubed? But sorry, that's
not right. When you change the speed of the fluid, the impact force goes up
by the square of the speed change factor. Double the speed and force is
four times higher. The *power* in the fluid flow goes up by 8 (2 cubed).
Or don't you remember the difference between power and force??



Get with the program. We don't make the laws of nature.

Apparently, you don't even understand the laws of nature. The best
compression you can get with any form of nozzle/deflector/window is the
dynamic head of the wind. That is a very tiny pressure increase over static
pressure. No where near a factor of 1.8 (see above).

<snip>



But they still impart a force 'downwind'. The angle of the plane
determines
the portion of the total force that is in line with the wind and the
portion
that is perpendicular. In your design, even with 'negligible' surfaces
that
are exactly perpendicular, there are certainly 'non-negligible' surfaces
and
the sum of their forces will be substantial.

Then you could do the math and demonstrate that. If you are unable to
produce fault-free math, then I guess you are just pulling statements
out of your ass, aren't you?

Silly debating tactic. Ask for something that can only be derived through
detailed wind tunnel tests, and then claim that since I haven't the time to
do such tests, that I'm obviously wrong.

Modern engineers can use various empirically derived 'rules of thumb' for
common structures, but yours is uncommon. A key to using such 'rules of
thumb' is to know when *not* to apply them.



I believe Bernouli and Pascal had the equations to
resolve the wind speed increase difference of opinion. Why don't you
post your spread*** showing what you think the real numbers would
be?

I can cup my hands and blow air into a campfire to get it started to
prove my point. It's the same air with or without cupping my hands --
the cupping can make all the difference if there is ample air flow to
oxygenate the spark.

Silly non-scientific analysis. And you can get a more 'directed' stream
of
air

Enormous kudos Daestrom on maintaining civility with him. The
fundamental bust is that he does not get the bow wave concept or
accept the first law. I doubt that can be fixed at this point.
possibly the problem is that he assumes wake effects travel only
downstream, and doesn't understand that in a compressible fluid
there's a pressure gradient upstream (or upwind) of the constriction
that will result in less air mass entering his "tower".

.