## Re: Canals

Expand Messages
• Kirk... what happens at a waterfall? if a 2 foot section of water is removed. and WATER DOES NOT STRETCH then you can count on that 2 foot section filling
Message 1 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
Kirk...

what happens at a waterfall?
if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
again in a extremely short time.
in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the canal
because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a slower
rate of flow.
because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the wall
has less and less flow restriction.
if you find that the flow restriction is too great just design a
larger canal dont throw away the idea.
you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up and fill
up faster than you could count to 2.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is very
different. All
> the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal the less
slope
> needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the needed
slope. If
> it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--but that
isn't the
> real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based on wall
> roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look it up
without
> calculating it if you want.
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> AMAZING
> so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> a wall height of 10 miles correct?
>
> fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height differential
> over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
>
> are there any 10 mile high mountains.
>
> you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> and that water must have a height differential to do this.
>
> if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
>
> all of the water in that canal would move towards the end you
removed
> the 2 ft section from.
>
> one of the first things you learn about water is that it seeks its
> own level.
>
> your required 20 mile wall height is null.
>
> the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> of the flowing water.
> and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> this resistance can be null.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom and sides
> of the
> > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming it is
> perfectly
> > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height. This
> also means
> > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and enter
the
> high
> > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so 2000 miles
> needs 20
> > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> >
> > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > then cut it down the middle.
> > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > and fill them both with water.
> > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > for reference purposes.
> >
> > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > at one end of the model canals.
> >
> > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different colored
> > water and place it in the other color water side.
> >
> > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> >
> > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > the water in the canals.
> >
> > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will flow
> > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the water
out
> of
> > in each of the half pipes...
> >
> >
> > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need to
supply
> > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the end of
the
> > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue dyed water
> > in the pipe.
> >
> > there would be water flowing to your friend and water flowing to
> you.
> >
> > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic, but I don't
> > understand how
> > >
> > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > >
> > >
> > > I missed something?
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the canal at first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further back with decreasing drop.
Message 2 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the canal at
first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further back with
decreasing drop.

http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives drag loss for
sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3 inches in a mile.
Pretty big canal.

The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick estimates of flow
characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-1/ref=
sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912

Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
To: AMBIENTENERGY@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals

Kirk...

what happens at a waterfall?
if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
again in a extremely short time.
in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the canal
because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a slower
rate of flow.
because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the wall
has less and less flow restriction.
if you find that the flow restriction is too great just design a
larger canal dont throw away the idea.
you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up and fill
up faster than you could count to 2.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is very
different. All
> the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal the less
slope
> needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the needed
slope. If
> it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--but that
isn't the
> real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based on wall
> roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look it up
without
> calculating it if you want.
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> AMAZING
> so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> a wall height of 10 miles correct?
>
> fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height differential
> over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
>
> are there any 10 mile high mountains.
>
> you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> and that water must have a height differential to do this.
>
> if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
>
> all of the water in that canal would move towards the end you
removed
> the 2 ft section from.
>
> one of the first things you learn about water is that it seeks its
> own level.
>
> your required 20 mile wall height is null.
>
> the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> of the flowing water.
> and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> this resistance can be null.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom and sides
> of the
> > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming it is
> perfectly
> > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height. This
> also means
> > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and enter
the
> high
> > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so 2000 miles
> needs 20
> > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> >
> > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > then cut it down the middle.
> > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > and fill them both with water.
> > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > for reference purposes.
> >
> > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > at one end of the model canals.
> >
> > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different colored
> > water and place it in the other color water side.
> >
> > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> >
> > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > the water in the canals.
> >
> > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will flow
> > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the water
out
> of
> > in each of the half pipes...
> >
> >
> > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need to
supply
> > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the end of
the
> > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue dyed water
> > in the pipe.
> >
> > there would be water flowing to your friend and water flowing to
> you.
> >
> > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic, but I don't
> > understand how
> > >
> > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > >
> > >
> > > I missed something?
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• Kirk... if the water is being pumped out continously the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second... 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
Message 3 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
Kirk...

if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...

50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.

2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039 Gallons/second
14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338 GPM
897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
each minute.

the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated at
5000 HP
this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP

so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
32 MW input energy...

the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of energy.

that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.

are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to group
together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that our
world faces...

even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for the
resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
along the canal.

if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower velocity of
fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point each
second.

it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot understand
.... it is not complicated enought for you....
you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that this
is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
this is impossible you say it can not be.

there are only two types of energy in physics...

potential and kinetic...
yet the energy from each is the same.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the canal
at
> first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further back
with
> decreasing drop.
>
> http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives drag
loss for
> sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3 inches
in a mile.
> Pretty big canal.
>
> The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick estimates of
flow
> characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
1/ref=
> sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
>
> Kirk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> Kirk...
>
> what happens at a waterfall?
> if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> again in a extremely short time.
> in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the canal
> because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a slower
> rate of flow.
> because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the wall
> has less and less flow restriction.
> if you find that the flow restriction is too great just design a
> larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up and fill
> up faster than you could count to 2.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is very
> different. All
> > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal the
less
> slope
> > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the needed
> slope. If
> > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--but that
> isn't the
> > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based on
wall
> > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look it up
> without
> > calculating it if you want.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > AMAZING
> > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> >
> > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height differential
> > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> >
> > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> >
> > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> >
> > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> >
> > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end you
> removed
> > the 2 ft section from.
> >
> > one of the first things you learn about water is that it seeks its
> > own level.
> >
> > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> >
> > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > of the flowing water.
> > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > this resistance can be null.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom and
sides
> > of the
> > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming it is
> > perfectly
> > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height. This
> > also means
> > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and enter
> the
> > high
> > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so 2000
miles
> > needs 20
> > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > >
> > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > and fill them both with water.
> > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > for reference purposes.
> > >
> > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > at one end of the model canals.
> > >
> > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different colored
> > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > >
> > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > >
> > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > the water in the canals.
> > >
> > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will flow
> > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the water
> out
> > of
> > > in each of the half pipes...
> > >
> > >
> > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need to
> supply
> > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the end of
> the
> > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue dyed
water
> > > in the pipe.
> > >
> > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water flowing to
> > you.
> > >
> > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic, but I
don't
> > > understand how
> > > >
> > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I missed something?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• Very simple. Start with an empty canal. Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes you happy, a certain mass into the canal, When it is
Message 4 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes you happy, a
certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the canal
represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic energy of
the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage system on a
grand scale?

Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
To: AMBIENTENERGY@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals

Kirk...

if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...

50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.

2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039 Gallons/second
14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338 GPM
897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
each minute.

the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated at
5000 HP
this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP

so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
32 MW input energy...

the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of energy.

that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.

are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to group
together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that our
world faces...

even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for the
resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
along the canal.

if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower velocity of
fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point each
second.

it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot understand
.... it is not complicated enought for you....
you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that this
is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
this is impossible you say it can not be.

there are only two types of energy in physics...

potential and kinetic...
yet the energy from each is the same.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the canal
at
> first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further back
with
> decreasing drop.
>
> http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives drag
loss for
> sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3 inches
in a mile.
> Pretty big canal.
>
> The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick estimates of
flow
> characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
1/ref=
> sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
>
> Kirk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> Kirk...
>
> what happens at a waterfall?
> if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> again in a extremely short time.
> in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the canal
> because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a slower
> rate of flow.
> because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the wall
> has less and less flow restriction.
> if you find that the flow restriction is too great just design a
> larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up and fill
> up faster than you could count to 2.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is very
> different. All
> > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal the
less
> slope
> > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the needed
> slope. If
> > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--but that
> isn't the
> > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based on
wall
> > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look it up
> without
> > calculating it if you want.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > AMAZING
> > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> >
> > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height differential
> > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> >
> > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> >
> > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> >
> > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> >
> > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end you
> removed
> > the 2 ft section from.
> >
> > one of the first things you learn about water is that it seeks its
> > own level.
> >
> > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> >
> > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > of the flowing water.
> > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > this resistance can be null.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom and
sides
> > of the
> > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming it is
> > perfectly
> > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height. This
> > also means
> > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and enter
> the
> > high
> > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so 2000
miles
> > needs 20
> > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > >
> > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > and fill them both with water.
> > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > for reference purposes.
> > >
> > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > at one end of the model canals.
> > >
> > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different colored
> > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > >
> > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > >
> > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > the water in the canals.
> > >
> > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will flow
> > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the water
> out
> > of
> > > in each of the half pipes...
> > >
> > >
> > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need to
> supply
> > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the end of
> the
> > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue dyed
water
> > > in the pipe.
> > >
> > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water flowing to
> > you.
> > >
> > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic, but I
don't
> > > understand how
> > > >
> > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I missed something?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• Kirk... Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart? that is like saying that you need to first build a sun and then wait for it to cause wind. and then the
Message 5 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
Kirk...
Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
and then wait for it to cause wind.
and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
is the amount you put in building the sun...

in other words simplt put... bullcrap.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes you
happy, a
> certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the canal
> represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic
energy of
> the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
system on a
> grand scale?
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> Kirk...
>
> if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
>
> 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
>
> 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039 Gallons/second
> 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338 GPM
> 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> each minute.
>
> the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated at
> 5000 HP
> this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
>
> so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> 32 MW input energy...
>
> the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of energy.
>
> that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
>
>
> are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to group
> together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that our
> world faces...
>
> even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for the
> resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
> equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
> along the canal.
>
> if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower velocity
of
> fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point each
> second.
>
> it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
understand
> .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that this
> is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> this is impossible you say it can not be.
>
> there are only two types of energy in physics...
>
> potential and kinetic...
> yet the energy from each is the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the
canal
> at
> > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further back
> with
> > decreasing drop.
> >
> > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives drag
> loss for
> > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3 inches
> in a mile.
> > Pretty big canal.
> >
> > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick estimates of
> flow
> > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> 1/ref=
> > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > Kirk...
> >
> > what happens at a waterfall?
> > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > again in a extremely short time.
> > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the canal
> > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a
slower
> > rate of flow.
> > because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the wall
> > has less and less flow restriction.
> > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just design a
> > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up and
fill
> > up faster than you could count to 2.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is very
> > different. All
> > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal the
> less
> > slope
> > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
needed
> > slope. If
> > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--but
that
> > isn't the
> > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based on
> wall
> > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look it up
> > without
> > > calculating it if you want.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > AMAZING
> > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > >
> > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height differential
> > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > >
> > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > >
> > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > >
> > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > >
> > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end you
> > removed
> > > the 2 ft section from.
> > >
> > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it seeks
its
> > > own level.
> > >
> > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > >
> > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > of the flowing water.
> > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > this resistance can be null.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom and
> sides
> > > of the
> > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming it
is
> > > perfectly
> > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height.
This
> > > also means
> > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and
enter
> > the
> > > high
> > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so 2000
> miles
> > > needs 20
> > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > >
> > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > for reference purposes.
> > > >
> > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > >
> > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
colored
> > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > >
> > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > >
> > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > > the water in the canals.
> > > >
> > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will flow
> > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the
water
> > out
> > > of
> > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need to
> > supply
> > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the end
of
> > the
> > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue dyed
> water
> > > > in the pipe.
> > > >
> > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water flowing
to
> > > you.
> > > >
> > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic, but I
> don't
> > > > understand how
> > > > >
> > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I missed something?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• kirk. your embarrasing attempts at proving there is no free energy has strengtned my conviction and those who are following this discussion. you have proven
Message 6 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
kirk.
your embarrasing attempts at proving there is no free energy has
strengtned my conviction and those who are following this discussion.

you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you cannot accept
reality and have choose to remain an ostrage with his head stuck in
the sand knowing that the world cannot see you as it passes you by.

I have tried my best by showing you perfect mathmetical examples
yet you just dont seem to realize that there just isnt such a thing
as "no free energy".
repeatedly I have tried my best to do this yet even with extremely
simple examples you fail to have the inteligence to comprehend them.
so what am I to do group?
should I continue to exert my energy in this manner knowing that his
mind has been brainwashed to such an extent?
or should I just give up?

I dont feel obligated to try further.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes you
happy, a
> certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the canal
> represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic
energy of
> the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
system on a
> grand scale?
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> Kirk...
>
> if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
>
> 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
>
> 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039 Gallons/second
> 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338 GPM
> 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> each minute.
>
> the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated at
> 5000 HP
> this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
>
> so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> 32 MW input energy...
>
> the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of energy.
>
> that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
>
>
> are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to group
> together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that our
> world faces...
>
> even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for the
> resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
> equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
> along the canal.
>
> if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower velocity
of
> fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point each
> second.
>
> it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
understand
> .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that this
> is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> this is impossible you say it can not be.
>
> there are only two types of energy in physics...
>
> potential and kinetic...
> yet the energy from each is the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the
canal
> at
> > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further back
> with
> > decreasing drop.
> >
> > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives drag
> loss for
> > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3 inches
> in a mile.
> > Pretty big canal.
> >
> > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick estimates of
> flow
> > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> 1/ref=
> > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > Kirk...
> >
> > what happens at a waterfall?
> > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > again in a extremely short time.
> > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the canal
> > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a
slower
> > rate of flow.
> > because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the wall
> > has less and less flow restriction.
> > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just design a
> > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up and
fill
> > up faster than you could count to 2.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is very
> > different. All
> > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal the
> less
> > slope
> > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
needed
> > slope. If
> > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--but
that
> > isn't the
> > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based on
> wall
> > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look it up
> > without
> > > calculating it if you want.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > AMAZING
> > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > >
> > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height differential
> > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > >
> > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > >
> > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > >
> > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > >
> > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end you
> > removed
> > > the 2 ft section from.
> > >
> > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it seeks
its
> > > own level.
> > >
> > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > >
> > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > of the flowing water.
> > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > this resistance can be null.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom and
> sides
> > > of the
> > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming it
is
> > > perfectly
> > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height.
This
> > > also means
> > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and
enter
> > the
> > > high
> > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so 2000
> miles
> > > needs 20
> > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > >
> > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > for reference purposes.
> > > >
> > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > >
> > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
colored
> > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > >
> > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > >
> > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > > the water in the canals.
> > > >
> > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will flow
> > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the
water
> > out
> > > of
> > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need to
> > supply
> > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the end
of
> > the
> > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue dyed
> water
> > > > in the pipe.
> > > >
> > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water flowing
to
> > > you.
> > > >
> > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic, but I
> don't
> > > > understand how
> > > > >
> > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I missed something?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive? I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the rudeness comes automatically. The circulating energy
Message 7 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the rudeness comes
automatically.
The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't get out more
than you put in.
Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.

Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
To: AMBIENTENERGY@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals

Kirk...
Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
and then wait for it to cause wind.
and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
is the amount you put in building the sun...

in other words simplt put... bullcrap.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes you
happy, a
> certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the canal
> represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic
energy of
> the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
system on a
> grand scale?
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> Kirk...
>
> if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
>
> 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
>
> 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039 Gallons/second
> 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338 GPM
> 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> each minute.
>
> the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated at
> 5000 HP
> this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
>
> so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> 32 MW input energy...
>
> the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of energy.
>
> that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
>
>
> are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to group
> together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that our
> world faces...
>
> even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for the
> resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
> equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
> along the canal.
>
> if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower velocity
of
> fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point each
> second.
>
> it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
understand
> .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that this
> is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> this is impossible you say it can not be.
>
> there are only two types of energy in physics...
>
> potential and kinetic...
> yet the energy from each is the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the
canal
> at
> > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further back
> with
> > decreasing drop.
> >
> > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives drag
> loss for
> > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3 inches
> in a mile.
> > Pretty big canal.
> >
> > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick estimates of
> flow
> > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> 1/ref=
> > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > Kirk...
> >
> > what happens at a waterfall?
> > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > again in a extremely short time.
> > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the canal
> > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a
slower
> > rate of flow.
> > because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the wall
> > has less and less flow restriction.
> > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just design a
> > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up and
fill
> > up faster than you could count to 2.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is very
> > different. All
> > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal the
> less
> > slope
> > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
needed
> > slope. If
> > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--but
that
> > isn't the
> > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based on
> wall
> > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look it up
> > without
> > > calculating it if you want.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > AMAZING
> > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > >
> > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height differential
> > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > >
> > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > >
> > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > >
> > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > >
> > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end you
> > removed
> > > the 2 ft section from.
> > >
> > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it seeks
its
> > > own level.
> > >
> > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > >
> > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > of the flowing water.
> > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > this resistance can be null.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom and
> sides
> > > of the
> > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming it
is
> > > perfectly
> > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height.
This
> > > also means
> > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and
enter
> > the
> > > high
> > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so 2000
> miles
> > > needs 20
> > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > >
> > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > for reference purposes.
> > > >
> > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > >
> > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
colored
> > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > >
> > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > >
> > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > > the water in the canals.
> > > >
> > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will flow
> > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the
water
> > out
> > > of
> > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need to
> > supply
> > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the end
of
> > the
> > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue dyed
> water
> > > > in the pipe.
> > > >
> > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water flowing
to
> > > you.
> > > >
> > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic, but I
> don't
> > > > understand how
> > > > >
> > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I missed something?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• Rubbish. ... From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:57 PM To: AMBIENTENERGY@yahoogroups.com Subject:
Message 8 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
Rubbish.

-----Original Message-----
From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:57 PM
To: AMBIENTENERGY@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals

kirk.
your embarrasing attempts at proving there is no free energy has
strengtned my conviction and those who are following this discussion.

you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you cannot accept
reality and have choose to remain an ostrage with his head stuck in
the sand knowing that the world cannot see you as it passes you by.

I have tried my best by showing you perfect mathmetical examples
yet you just dont seem to realize that there just isnt such a thing
as "no free energy".
repeatedly I have tried my best to do this yet even with extremely
simple examples you fail to have the inteligence to comprehend them.
so what am I to do group?
should I continue to exert my energy in this manner knowing that his
mind has been brainwashed to such an extent?
or should I just give up?

I dont feel obligated to try further.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes you
happy, a
> certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the canal
> represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic
energy of
> the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
system on a
> grand scale?
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> Kirk...
>
> if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
>
> 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
>
> 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039 Gallons/second
> 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338 GPM
> 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> each minute.
>
> the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated at
> 5000 HP
> this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
>
> so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> 32 MW input energy...
>
> the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of energy.
>
> that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
>
>
> are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to group
> together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that our
> world faces...
>
> even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for the
> resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
> equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
> along the canal.
>
> if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower velocity
of
> fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point each
> second.
>
> it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
understand
> .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that this
> is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> this is impossible you say it can not be.
>
> there are only two types of energy in physics...
>
> potential and kinetic...
> yet the energy from each is the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the
canal
> at
> > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further back
> with
> > decreasing drop.
> >
> > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives drag
> loss for
> > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3 inches
> in a mile.
> > Pretty big canal.
> >
> > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick estimates of
> flow
> > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> 1/ref=
> > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > Kirk...
> >
> > what happens at a waterfall?
> > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > again in a extremely short time.
> > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the canal
> > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a
slower
> > rate of flow.
> > because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the wall
> > has less and less flow restriction.
> > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just design a
> > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up and
fill
> > up faster than you could count to 2.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is very
> > different. All
> > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal the
> less
> > slope
> > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
needed
> > slope. If
> > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--but
that
> > isn't the
> > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based on
> wall
> > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look it up
> > without
> > > calculating it if you want.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > AMAZING
> > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > >
> > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height differential
> > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > >
> > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > >
> > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > >
> > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > >
> > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end you
> > removed
> > > the 2 ft section from.
> > >
> > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it seeks
its
> > > own level.
> > >
> > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > >
> > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > of the flowing water.
> > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > this resistance can be null.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom and
> sides
> > > of the
> > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming it
is
> > > perfectly
> > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height.
This
> > > also means
> > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and
enter
> > the
> > > high
> > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so 2000
> miles
> > > needs 20
> > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > >
> > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > for reference purposes.
> > > >
> > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > >
> > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
colored
> > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > >
> > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > >
> > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > > the water in the canals.
> > > >
> > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will flow
> > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the
water
> > out
> > > of
> > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need to
> > supply
> > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the end
of
> > the
> > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue dyed
> water
> > > > in the pipe.
> > > >
> > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water flowing
to
> > > you.
> > > >
> > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic, but I
> don't
> > > > understand how
> > > > >
> > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I missed something?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• if you would like to discuss the physics then we can. lets do just that. 1 we start with 2 full canals. we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.
Message 9 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
if you would like to discuss the physics then we can.
lets do just that.

we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.

2 we circulate the water in the 2 canals.
we do this continously.

3 we measure the amount of input energy to circulate the water.
we use the pumps that I supplied links to.

4 we measure the kinetic energy of the flowing water.
we use KE=1/2mv^2

after this we can move on to the ability of the kinetic energy
of the flowing water to produce mechanical energy.

are you game or just full of it.
more than likely you will agree to do this.
then you will quit as all others have.
fearing your precious laws of physics will
prove to have been broken.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
> I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the rudeness
comes
> automatically.
> The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't get out
more
> than you put in.
> Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
> Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> Kirk...
> Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
> that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
> and then wait for it to cause wind.
> and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
> is the amount you put in building the sun...
>
> in other words simplt put... bullcrap.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes you
> happy, a
> > certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the
canal
> > represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic
> energy of
> > the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
> system on a
> > grand scale?
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > Kirk...
> >
> > if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> > the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
> >
> > 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> > 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
> >
> > 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> > 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039 Gallons/second
> > 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338 GPM
> > 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> > each minute.
> >
> > the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated at
> > 5000 HP
> > this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> > we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> > so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
> >
> > so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> > I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> > 32 MW input energy...
> >
> > the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of
energy.
> >
> > that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> > even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
> >
> >
> > are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to
group
> > together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that
our
> > world faces...
> >
> > even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for the
> > resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
> > equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
> > along the canal.
> >
> > if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower velocity
> of
> > fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point each
> > second.
> >
> > it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
> understand
> > .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> > you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that
this
> > is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> > this is impossible you say it can not be.
> >
> > there are only two types of energy in physics...
> >
> > potential and kinetic...
> > yet the energy from each is the same.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the
> canal
> > at
> > > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further
back
> > with
> > > decreasing drop.
> > >
> > > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives
drag
> > loss for
> > > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3
inches
> > in a mile.
> > > Pretty big canal.
> > >
> > > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick estimates
of
> > flow
> > > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> > 1/ref=
> > > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk...
> > >
> > > what happens at a waterfall?
> > > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > > again in a extremely short time.
> > > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the
canal
> > > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a
> slower
> > > rate of flow.
> > > because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> > > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the
wall
> > > has less and less flow restriction.
> > > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just design a
> > > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up and
> fill
> > > up faster than you could count to 2.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is very
> > > different. All
> > > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal the
> > less
> > > slope
> > > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
> needed
> > > slope. If
> > > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--but
> that
> > > isn't the
> > > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based on
> > wall
> > > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look it
up
> > > without
> > > > calculating it if you want.
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > AMAZING
> > > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > > >
> > > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height
differential
> > > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > > >
> > > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > > >
> > > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > > >
> > > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > > >
> > > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end you
> > > removed
> > > > the 2 ft section from.
> > > >
> > > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it seeks
> its
> > > > own level.
> > > >
> > > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > > >
> > > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > > of the flowing water.
> > > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > > this resistance can be null.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom and
> > sides
> > > > of the
> > > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming it
> is
> > > > perfectly
> > > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height.
> This
> > > > also means
> > > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and
> enter
> > > the
> > > > high
> > > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so 2000
> > miles
> > > > needs 20
> > > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > > >
> > > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > > for reference purposes.
> > > > >
> > > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > > >
> > > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
> colored
> > > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > > >
> > > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > > >
> > > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > > > the water in the canals.
> > > > >
> > > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will
flow
> > > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the
> water
> > > out
> > > > of
> > > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need to
> > > supply
> > > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the end
> of
> > > the
> > > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue dyed
> > water
> > > > > in the pipe.
> > > > >
> > > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water
flowing
> to
> > > > you.
> > > > >
> > > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic, but I
> > don't
> > > > > understand how
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I missed something?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• Not precious. Just proven painfully to be true. Heinlein put it as TANSTAAFL Their Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. ... From: gearjammer123us
Message 10 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
Not precious. Just proven painfully to be true.
Heinlein put it as TANSTAAFL
Their Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

-----Original Message-----
From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 5:38 PM
To: AMBIENTENERGY@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals

if you would like to discuss the physics then we can.
lets do just that.

we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.

2 we circulate the water in the 2 canals.
we do this continously.

3 we measure the amount of input energy to circulate the water.
we use the pumps that I supplied links to.

4 we measure the kinetic energy of the flowing water.
we use KE=1/2mv^2

after this we can move on to the ability of the kinetic energy
of the flowing water to produce mechanical energy.

are you game or just full of it.
more than likely you will agree to do this.
then you will quit as all others have.
fearing your precious laws of physics will
prove to have been broken.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
> I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the rudeness
comes
> automatically.
> The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't get out
more
> than you put in.
> Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
> Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> Kirk...
> Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
> that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
> and then wait for it to cause wind.
> and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
> is the amount you put in building the sun...
>
> in other words simplt put... bullcrap.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes you
> happy, a
> > certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the
canal
> > represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic
> energy of
> > the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
> system on a
> > grand scale?
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > Kirk...
> >
> > if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> > the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
> >
> > 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> > 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
> >
> > 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> > 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039 Gallons/second
> > 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338 GPM
> > 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> > each minute.
> >
> > the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated at
> > 5000 HP
> > this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> > we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> > so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
> >
> > so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> > I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> > 32 MW input energy...
> >
> > the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of
energy.
> >
> > that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> > even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
> >
> >
> > are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to
group
> > together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that
our
> > world faces...
> >
> > even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for the
> > resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
> > equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
> > along the canal.
> >
> > if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower velocity
> of
> > fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point each
> > second.
> >
> > it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
> understand
> > .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> > you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that
this
> > is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> > this is impossible you say it can not be.
> >
> > there are only two types of energy in physics...
> >
> > potential and kinetic...
> > yet the energy from each is the same.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the
> canal
> > at
> > > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further
back
> > with
> > > decreasing drop.
> > >
> > > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives
drag
> > loss for
> > > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3
inches
> > in a mile.
> > > Pretty big canal.
> > >
> > > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick estimates
of
> > flow
> > > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> > 1/ref=
> > > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk...
> > >
> > > what happens at a waterfall?
> > > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > > again in a extremely short time.
> > > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the
canal
> > > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a
> slower
> > > rate of flow.
> > > because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> > > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the
wall
> > > has less and less flow restriction.
> > > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just design a
> > > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up and
> fill
> > > up faster than you could count to 2.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is very
> > > different. All
> > > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal the
> > less
> > > slope
> > > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
> needed
> > > slope. If
> > > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--but
> that
> > > isn't the
> > > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based on
> > wall
> > > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look it
up
> > > without
> > > > calculating it if you want.
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > AMAZING
> > > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > > >
> > > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height
differential
> > > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > > >
> > > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > > >
> > > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > > >
> > > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > > >
> > > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end you
> > > removed
> > > > the 2 ft section from.
> > > >
> > > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it seeks
> its
> > > > own level.
> > > >
> > > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > > >
> > > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > > of the flowing water.
> > > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > > this resistance can be null.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom and
> > sides
> > > > of the
> > > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming it
> is
> > > > perfectly
> > > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height.
> This
> > > > also means
> > > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and
> enter
> > > the
> > > > high
> > > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so 2000
> > miles
> > > > needs 20
> > > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > > >
> > > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > > for reference purposes.
> > > > >
> > > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > > >
> > > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
> colored
> > > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > > >
> > > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > > >
> > > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > > > the water in the canals.
> > > > >
> > > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will
flow
> > > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the
> water
> > > out
> > > > of
> > > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need to
> > > supply
> > > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the end
> of
> > > the
> > > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue dyed
> > water
> > > > > in the pipe.
> > > > >
> > > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water
flowing
> to
> > > > you.
> > > > >
> > > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic, but I
> > don't
> > > > > understand how
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I missed something?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• NO just proven by the wrong people. once again are you willing to have your bubble busted? ... out ... you ... Gallons/second ... GPM ... at ... comparison?
Message 11 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
NO just proven by the wrong people.

once again are you willing to have your bubble busted?

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> Not precious. Just proven painfully to be true.
> Heinlein put it as TANSTAAFL
> Their Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 5:38 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> if you would like to discuss the physics then we can.
> lets do just that.
>
> we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.
>
> 2 we circulate the water in the 2 canals.
> we do this continously.
>
> 3 we measure the amount of input energy to circulate the water.
> we use the pumps that I supplied links to.
>
> 4 we measure the kinetic energy of the flowing water.
> we use KE=1/2mv^2
>
> after this we can move on to the ability of the kinetic energy
> of the flowing water to produce mechanical energy.
>
> are you game or just full of it.
> more than likely you will agree to do this.
> then you will quit as all others have.
> fearing your precious laws of physics will
> prove to have been broken.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
> > I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the rudeness
> comes
> > automatically.
> > The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't get
out
> more
> > than you put in.
> > Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
> > Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > Kirk...
> > Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
> > that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
> > and then wait for it to cause wind.
> > and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
> > is the amount you put in building the sun...
> >
> > in other words simplt put... bullcrap.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes
you
> > happy, a
> > > certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the
> canal
> > > represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic
> > energy of
> > > the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
> > system on a
> > > grand scale?
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk...
> > >
> > > if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> > > the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
> > >
> > > 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> > > 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
> > >
> > > 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> > > 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039
Gallons/second
> > > 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338
GPM
> > > 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> > > each minute.
> > >
> > > the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated
at
> > > 5000 HP
> > > this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> > > we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> > > so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
> > >
> > > so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> > > I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> > > 32 MW input energy...
> > >
> > > the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of
> energy.
> > >
> > > that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> > > even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
> > >
comparison?
> > >
> > > are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to
> group
> > > together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that
> our
> > > world faces...
> > >
> > > even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for
the
> > > resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
> > > equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
> > > along the canal.
> > >
> > > if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower
velocity
> > of
> > > fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point
each
> > > second.
> > >
> > > it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
> > understand
> > > .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> > > you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that
> this
> > > is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> > > this is impossible you say it can not be.
> > >
> > > there are only two types of energy in physics...
> > >
> > > potential and kinetic...
> > > yet the energy from each is the same.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the
> > canal
> > > at
> > > > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further
> back
> > > with
> > > > decreasing drop.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives
> drag
> > > loss for
> > > > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > > > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3
> inches
> > > in a mile.
> > > > Pretty big canal.
> > > >
> > > > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick
estimates
> of
> > > flow
> > > > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> > > 1/ref=
> > > > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kirk...
> > > >
> > > > what happens at a waterfall?
> > > > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > > > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > > > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > > > again in a extremely short time.
> > > > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > > > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > > > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the
> canal
> > > > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a
> > slower
> > > > rate of flow.
> > > > because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> > > > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the
> wall
> > > > has less and less flow restriction.
> > > > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just
design a
> > > > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > > > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up
and
> > fill
> > > > up faster than you could count to 2.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is
very
> > > > different. All
> > > > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal
the
> > > less
> > > > slope
> > > > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
> > needed
> > > > slope. If
> > > > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--
but
> > that
> > > > isn't the
> > > > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based
on
> > > wall
> > > > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look
it
> up
> > > > without
> > > > > calculating it if you want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > AMAZING
> > > > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height
> differential
> > > > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > > > >
> > > > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > > > >
> > > > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > > > >
> > > > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > > > >
> > > > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end
you
> > > > removed
> > > > > the 2 ft section from.
> > > > >
> > > > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it
seeks
> > its
> > > > > own level.
> > > > >
> > > > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > > > >
> > > > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > > > of the flowing water.
> > > > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > > > this resistance can be null.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom
and
> > > sides
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming
it
> > is
> > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height.
> > This
> > > > > also means
> > > > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and
> > enter
> > > > the
> > > > > high
> > > > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so
2000
> > > miles
> > > > > needs 20
> > > > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > > > for reference purposes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
> > colored
> > > > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > > > > the water in the canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will
> flow
> > > > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the
> > water
> > > > out
> > > > > of
> > > > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need
to
> > > > supply
> > > > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the
end
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue
dyed
> > > water
> > > > > > in the pipe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water
> flowing
> > to
> > > > > you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic,
but I
> > > don't
> > > > > > understand how
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I missed something?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• deffinition of a PHYSICS CHICKEN. one who claims their laws are correct yet never can back them up. ... out ... you ... Gallons/second ... GPM ... at ...
Message 12 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
deffinition of a PHYSICS CHICKEN.
one who claims their laws are correct yet
never can back them up.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> Not precious. Just proven painfully to be true.
> Heinlein put it as TANSTAAFL
> Their Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 5:38 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> if you would like to discuss the physics then we can.
> lets do just that.
>
> we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.
>
> 2 we circulate the water in the 2 canals.
> we do this continously.
>
> 3 we measure the amount of input energy to circulate the water.
> we use the pumps that I supplied links to.
>
> 4 we measure the kinetic energy of the flowing water.
> we use KE=1/2mv^2
>
> after this we can move on to the ability of the kinetic energy
> of the flowing water to produce mechanical energy.
>
> are you game or just full of it.
> more than likely you will agree to do this.
> then you will quit as all others have.
> fearing your precious laws of physics will
> prove to have been broken.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
> > I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the rudeness
> comes
> > automatically.
> > The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't get
out
> more
> > than you put in.
> > Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
> > Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > Kirk...
> > Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
> > that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
> > and then wait for it to cause wind.
> > and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
> > is the amount you put in building the sun...
> >
> > in other words simplt put... bullcrap.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes
you
> > happy, a
> > > certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the
> canal
> > > represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic
> > energy of
> > > the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
> > system on a
> > > grand scale?
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk...
> > >
> > > if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> > > the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
> > >
> > > 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> > > 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
> > >
> > > 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> > > 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039
Gallons/second
> > > 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338
GPM
> > > 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> > > each minute.
> > >
> > > the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated
at
> > > 5000 HP
> > > this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> > > we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> > > so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
> > >
> > > so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> > > I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> > > 32 MW input energy...
> > >
> > > the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of
> energy.
> > >
> > > that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> > > even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
> > >
comparison?
> > >
> > > are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to
> group
> > > together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that
> our
> > > world faces...
> > >
> > > even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for
the
> > > resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
> > > equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
> > > along the canal.
> > >
> > > if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower
velocity
> > of
> > > fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point
each
> > > second.
> > >
> > > it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
> > understand
> > > .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> > > you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that
> this
> > > is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> > > this is impossible you say it can not be.
> > >
> > > there are only two types of energy in physics...
> > >
> > > potential and kinetic...
> > > yet the energy from each is the same.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the
> > canal
> > > at
> > > > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further
> back
> > > with
> > > > decreasing drop.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives
> drag
> > > loss for
> > > > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > > > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3
> inches
> > > in a mile.
> > > > Pretty big canal.
> > > >
> > > > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick
estimates
> of
> > > flow
> > > > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> > > 1/ref=
> > > > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kirk...
> > > >
> > > > what happens at a waterfall?
> > > > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > > > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > > > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > > > again in a extremely short time.
> > > > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > > > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > > > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the
> canal
> > > > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a
> > slower
> > > > rate of flow.
> > > > because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> > > > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the
> wall
> > > > has less and less flow restriction.
> > > > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just
design a
> > > > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > > > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up
and
> > fill
> > > > up faster than you could count to 2.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is
very
> > > > different. All
> > > > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal
the
> > > less
> > > > slope
> > > > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
> > needed
> > > > slope. If
> > > > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--
but
> > that
> > > > isn't the
> > > > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based
on
> > > wall
> > > > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look
it
> up
> > > > without
> > > > > calculating it if you want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > AMAZING
> > > > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height
> differential
> > > > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > > > >
> > > > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > > > >
> > > > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > > > >
> > > > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > > > >
> > > > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end
you
> > > > removed
> > > > > the 2 ft section from.
> > > > >
> > > > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it
seeks
> > its
> > > > > own level.
> > > > >
> > > > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > > > >
> > > > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > > > of the flowing water.
> > > > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > > > this resistance can be null.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom
and
> > > sides
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming
it
> > is
> > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height.
> > This
> > > > > also means
> > > > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and
> > enter
> > > > the
> > > > > high
> > > > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so
2000
> > > miles
> > > > > needs 20
> > > > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > > > for reference purposes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
> > colored
> > > > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > > > > the water in the canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will
> flow
> > > > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the
> > water
> > > > out
> > > > > of
> > > > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need
to
> > > > supply
> > > > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the
end
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue
dyed
> > > water
> > > > > > in the pipe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water
> flowing
> > to
> > > > > you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic,
but I
> > > don't
> > > > > > understand how
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I missed something?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• you are incapable of proving me wrong. this should be so easy for you yet you avoid it. just like all the others. you stick your head in the sand. ... out ...
Message 13 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
you are incapable of proving me wrong.
this should be so easy for you yet you avoid it.
just like all the others.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "gearjammer123us" <gearjammer123us@y...>
wrote:
> if you would like to discuss the physics then we can.
> lets do just that.
>
> we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.
>
> 2 we circulate the water in the 2 canals.
> we do this continously.
>
> 3 we measure the amount of input energy to circulate the water.
> we use the pumps that I supplied links to.
>
> 4 we measure the kinetic energy of the flowing water.
> we use KE=1/2mv^2
>
> after this we can move on to the ability of the kinetic energy
> of the flowing water to produce mechanical energy.
>
> are you game or just full of it.
> more than likely you will agree to do this.
> then you will quit as all others have.
> fearing your precious laws of physics will
> prove to have been broken.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
> > I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the rudeness
> comes
> > automatically.
> > The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't get
out
> more
> > than you put in.
> > Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
> > Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > Kirk...
> > Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
> > that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
> > and then wait for it to cause wind.
> > and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
> > is the amount you put in building the sun...
> >
> > in other words simplt put... bullcrap.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes
you
> > happy, a
> > > certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the
> canal
> > > represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic
> > energy of
> > > the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
> > system on a
> > > grand scale?
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk...
> > >
> > > if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> > > the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
> > >
> > > 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> > > 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
> > >
> > > 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> > > 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039
Gallons/second
> > > 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338
GPM
> > > 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> > > each minute.
> > >
> > > the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated
at
> > > 5000 HP
> > > this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> > > we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> > > so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
> > >
> > > so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> > > I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> > > 32 MW input energy...
> > >
> > > the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of
> energy.
> > >
> > > that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> > > even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
> > >
comparison?
> > >
> > > are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to
> group
> > > together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that
> our
> > > world faces...
> > >
> > > even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for
the
> > > resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
> > > equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
> > > along the canal.
> > >
> > > if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower
velocity
> > of
> > > fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point
each
> > > second.
> > >
> > > it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
> > understand
> > > .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> > > you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that
> this
> > > is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> > > this is impossible you say it can not be.
> > >
> > > there are only two types of energy in physics...
> > >
> > > potential and kinetic...
> > > yet the energy from each is the same.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the
> > canal
> > > at
> > > > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further
> back
> > > with
> > > > decreasing drop.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives
> drag
> > > loss for
> > > > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > > > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3
> inches
> > > in a mile.
> > > > Pretty big canal.
> > > >
> > > > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick
estimates
> of
> > > flow
> > > > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> > > 1/ref=
> > > > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kirk...
> > > >
> > > > what happens at a waterfall?
> > > > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > > > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > > > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > > > again in a extremely short time.
> > > > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > > > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > > > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the
> canal
> > > > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a
> > slower
> > > > rate of flow.
> > > > because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> > > > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the
> wall
> > > > has less and less flow restriction.
> > > > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just
design a
> > > > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > > > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up
and
> > fill
> > > > up faster than you could count to 2.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is
very
> > > > different. All
> > > > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal
the
> > > less
> > > > slope
> > > > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
> > needed
> > > > slope. If
> > > > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--
but
> > that
> > > > isn't the
> > > > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based
on
> > > wall
> > > > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look
it
> up
> > > > without
> > > > > calculating it if you want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > AMAZING
> > > > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height
> differential
> > > > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > > > >
> > > > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > > > >
> > > > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > > > >
> > > > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > > > >
> > > > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end
you
> > > > removed
> > > > > the 2 ft section from.
> > > > >
> > > > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it
seeks
> > its
> > > > > own level.
> > > > >
> > > > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > > > >
> > > > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > > > of the flowing water.
> > > > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > > > this resistance can be null.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom
and
> > > sides
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming
it
> > is
> > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height.
> > This
> > > > > also means
> > > > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and
> > enter
> > > > the
> > > > > high
> > > > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so
2000
> > > miles
> > > > > needs 20
> > > > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > > > for reference purposes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
> > colored
> > > > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > > > > the water in the canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will
> flow
> > > > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the
> > water
> > > > out
> > > > > of
> > > > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need
to
> > > > supply
> > > > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the
end
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue
dyed
> > > water
> > > > > > in the pipe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water
> flowing
> > to
> > > > > you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic,
but I
> > > don't
> > > > > > understand how
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I missed something?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• So what is the purpose of this post? Sounds more like network wrestling than engineering. Fish or cut bait. Kirk ... From: gearjammer123us
Message 14 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
So what is the purpose of this post?
Sounds more like network wrestling than engineering.
Fish or cut bait.

Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 7:30 PM
To: AMBIENTENERGY@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals

you are incapable of proving me wrong.
this should be so easy for you yet you avoid it.
just like all the others.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "gearjammer123us" <gearjammer123us@y...>
wrote:
> if you would like to discuss the physics then we can.
> lets do just that.
>
> we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.
>
> 2 we circulate the water in the 2 canals.
> we do this continously.
>
> 3 we measure the amount of input energy to circulate the water.
> we use the pumps that I supplied links to.
>
> 4 we measure the kinetic energy of the flowing water.
> we use KE=1/2mv^2
>
> after this we can move on to the ability of the kinetic energy
> of the flowing water to produce mechanical energy.
>
> are you game or just full of it.
> more than likely you will agree to do this.
> then you will quit as all others have.
> fearing your precious laws of physics will
> prove to have been broken.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
> > I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the rudeness
> comes
> > automatically.
> > The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't get
out
> more
> > than you put in.
> > Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
> > Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > Kirk...
> > Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
> > that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
> > and then wait for it to cause wind.
> > and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
> > is the amount you put in building the sun...
> >
> > in other words simplt put... bullcrap.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology makes
you
> > happy, a
> > > certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in the
> canal
> > > represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the kintic
> > energy of
> > > the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
> > system on a
> > > grand scale?
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk...
> > >
> > > if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> > > the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
> > >
> > > 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> > > 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
> > >
> > > 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> > > 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039
Gallons/second
> > > 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds = 897662.337662338
GPM
> > > 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> > > each minute.
> > >
> > > the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are rated
at
> > > 5000 HP
> > > this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> > > we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> > > so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
> > >
> > > so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> > > I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> > > 32 MW input energy...
> > >
> > > the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of
> energy.
> > >
> > > that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> > > even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
> > >
comparison?
> > >
> > > are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here to
> group
> > > together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems that
> our
> > > world faces...
> > >
> > > even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for
the
> > > resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still be
> > > equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional point
> > > along the canal.
> > >
> > > if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower
velocity
> > of
> > > fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point
each
> > > second.
> > >
> > > it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
> > understand
> > > .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> > > you may have attended a college that implanted the notion that
> this
> > > is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> > > this is impossible you say it can not be.
> > >
> > > there are only two types of energy in physics...
> > >
> > > potential and kinetic...
> > > yet the energy from each is the same.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of the
> > canal
> > > at
> > > > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and further
> back
> > > with
> > > > decreasing drop.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm gives
> drag
> > > loss for
> > > > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > > > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3
> inches
> > > in a mile.
> > > > Pretty big canal.
> > > >
> > > > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick
estimates
> of
> > > flow
> > > > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> > > 1/ref=
> > > > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kirk...
> > > >
> > > > what happens at a waterfall?
> > > > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > > > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > > > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > > > again in a extremely short time.
> > > > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > > > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > > > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the
> canal
> > > > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be a
> > slower
> > > > rate of flow.
> > > > because the wall friction only holds water close to the walls
> > > > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from the
> wall
> > > > has less and less flow restriction.
> > > > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just
design a
> > > > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > > > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up
and
> > fill
> > > > up faster than you could count to 2.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is
very
> > > > different. All
> > > > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the canal
the
> > > less
> > > > slope
> > > > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
> > needed
> > > > slope. If
> > > > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--
but
> > that
> > > > isn't the
> > > > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables based
on
> > > wall
> > > > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look
it
> up
> > > > without
> > > > > calculating it if you want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > AMAZING
> > > > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height
> differential
> > > > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > > > >
> > > > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > > > >
> > > > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > > > >
> > > > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > > > >
> > > > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end
you
> > > > removed
> > > > > the 2 ft section from.
> > > > >
> > > > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it
seeks
> > its
> > > > > own level.
> > > > >
> > > > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > > > >
> > > > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > > > of the flowing water.
> > > > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > > > this resistance can be null.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom
and
> > > sides
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force, assuming
it
> > is
> > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall height.
> > This
> > > > > also means
> > > > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end and
> > enter
> > > > the
> > > > > high
> > > > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so
2000
> > > miles
> > > > > needs 20
> > > > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc pipe
> > > > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > > > for reference purposes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
> > colored
> > > > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move all
> > > > > > the water in the canals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water will
> flow
> > > > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take the
> > water
> > > > out
> > > > > of
> > > > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only need
to
> > > > supply
> > > > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from the
end
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue
dyed
> > > water
> > > > > > in the pipe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water
> flowing
> > to
> > > > > you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic,
but I
> > > don't
> > > > > > understand how
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I missed something?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• just stateing the facts. thats all. ... rudeness ... makes ... the ... kintic ... 897662.337662338 ... rated ... to ... that ... be ... point ... that ... the
Message 15 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
just stateing the facts.
thats all.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> So what is the purpose of this post?
> Sounds more like network wrestling than engineering.
> Fish or cut bait.
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 7:30 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> you are incapable of proving me wrong.
> this should be so easy for you yet you avoid it.
> just like all the others.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "gearjammer123us" <gearjammer123us@y...>
> wrote:
> > if you would like to discuss the physics then we can.
> > lets do just that.
> >
> > we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.
> >
> > 2 we circulate the water in the 2 canals.
> > we do this continously.
> >
> > 3 we measure the amount of input energy to circulate the water.
> > we use the pumps that I supplied links to.
> >
> > 4 we measure the kinetic energy of the flowing water.
> > we use KE=1/2mv^2
> >
> > after this we can move on to the ability of the kinetic energy
> > of the flowing water to produce mechanical energy.
> >
> > are you game or just full of it.
> > more than likely you will agree to do this.
> > then you will quit as all others have.
> > fearing your precious laws of physics will
> > prove to have been broken.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
> > > I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the
rudeness
> > comes
> > > automatically.
> > > The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't get
> out
> > more
> > > than you put in.
> > > Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
> > > Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk...
> > > Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
> > > that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
> > > and then wait for it to cause wind.
> > > and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
> > > is the amount you put in building the sun...
> > >
> > > in other words simplt put... bullcrap.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology
makes
> you
> > > happy, a
> > > > certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in
the
> > canal
> > > > represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the
kintic
> > > energy of
> > > > the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
> > > system on a
> > > > grand scale?
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kirk...
> > > >
> > > > if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> > > > the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
> > > >
> > > > 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> > > > 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
> > > >
> > > > 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> > > > 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039
> Gallons/second
> > > > 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds =
897662.337662338
> GPM
> > > > 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> > > > each minute.
> > > >
> > > > the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are
rated
> at
> > > > 5000 HP
> > > > this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> > > > we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> > > > so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
> > > >
> > > > so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> > > > I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> > > > 32 MW input energy...
> > > >
> > > > the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of
> > energy.
> > > >
> > > > that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> > > > even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
> > > >
> comparison?
> > > >
> > > > are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here
to
> > group
> > > > together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems
that
> > our
> > > > world faces...
> > > >
> > > > even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for
> the
> > > > resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still
be
> > > > equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional
point
> > > > along the canal.
> > > >
> > > > if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower
> velocity
> > > of
> > > > fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point
> each
> > > > second.
> > > >
> > > > it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
> > > understand
> > > > .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> > > > you may have attended a college that implanted the notion
that
> > this
> > > > is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> > > > this is impossible you say it can not be.
> > > >
> > > > there are only two types of energy in physics...
> > > >
> > > > potential and kinetic...
> > > > yet the energy from each is the same.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of
the
> > > canal
> > > > at
> > > > > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and
further
> > back
> > > > with
> > > > > decreasing drop.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm
gives
> > drag
> > > > loss for
> > > > > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > > > > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3
> > inches
> > > > in a mile.
> > > > > Pretty big canal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick
> estimates
> > of
> > > > flow
> > > > > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> > > > 1/ref=
> > > > > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk...
> > > > >
> > > > > what happens at a waterfall?
> > > > > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > > > > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > > > > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > > > > again in a extremely short time.
> > > > > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > > > > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > > > > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the
> > canal
> > > > > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be
a
> > > slower
> > > > > rate of flow.
> > > > > because the wall friction only holds water close to the
walls
> > > > > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from
the
> > wall
> > > > > has less and less flow restriction.
> > > > > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just
> design a
> > > > > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > > > > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up
> and
> > > fill
> > > > > up faster than you could count to 2.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is
> very
> > > > > different. All
> > > > > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the
canal
> the
> > > > less
> > > > > slope
> > > > > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
> > > needed
> > > > > slope. If
> > > > > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--
> but
> > > that
> > > > > isn't the
> > > > > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables
based
> on
> > > > wall
> > > > > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look
> it
> > up
> > > > > without
> > > > > > calculating it if you want.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AMAZING
> > > > > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > > > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height
> > differential
> > > > > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > > > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > > > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > > > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end
> you
> > > > > removed
> > > > > > the 2 ft section from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it
> seeks
> > > its
> > > > > > own level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > > > > of the flowing water.
> > > > > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > > > > this resistance can be null.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom
> and
> > > > sides
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force,
assuming
> it
> > > is
> > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall
height.
> > > This
> > > > > > also means
> > > > > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end
and
> > > enter
> > > > > the
> > > > > > high
> > > > > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so
> 2000
> > > > miles
> > > > > > needs 20
> > > > > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc
pipe
> > > > > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > > > > for reference purposes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
> > > colored
> > > > > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move
all
> > > > > > > the water in the canals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water
will
> > flow
> > > > > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take
the
> > > water
> > > > > out
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only
need
> to
> > > > > supply
> > > > > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from
the
> end
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue
> dyed
> > > > water
> > > > > > > in the pipe.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water
> > flowing
> > > to
> > > > > > you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic,
> but I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > understand how
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I missed something?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• So not only have you succeeded where all others have failed, you double as a comedian. Truly a legend in your own mind. Kirk ... From: gearjammer123us
Message 16 of 26 , Jul 4, 2002
So not only have you succeeded where all others have failed, you double as a
comedian.
Truly a legend in your own mind.

Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 8:55 PM
To: AMBIENTENERGY@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals

just stateing the facts.
thats all.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> So what is the purpose of this post?
> Sounds more like network wrestling than engineering.
> Fish or cut bait.
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 7:30 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> you are incapable of proving me wrong.
> this should be so easy for you yet you avoid it.
> just like all the others.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "gearjammer123us" <gearjammer123us@y...>
> wrote:
> > if you would like to discuss the physics then we can.
> > lets do just that.
> >
> > we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.
> >
> > 2 we circulate the water in the 2 canals.
> > we do this continously.
> >
> > 3 we measure the amount of input energy to circulate the water.
> > we use the pumps that I supplied links to.
> >
> > 4 we measure the kinetic energy of the flowing water.
> > we use KE=1/2mv^2
> >
> > after this we can move on to the ability of the kinetic energy
> > of the flowing water to produce mechanical energy.
> >
> > are you game or just full of it.
> > more than likely you will agree to do this.
> > then you will quit as all others have.
> > fearing your precious laws of physics will
> > prove to have been broken.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
> > > I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the
rudeness
> > comes
> > > automatically.
> > > The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't get
> out
> > more
> > > than you put in.
> > > Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
> > > Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
> > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk...
> > > Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
> > > that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
> > > and then wait for it to cause wind.
> > > and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
> > > is the amount you put in building the sun...
> > >
> > > in other words simplt put... bullcrap.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology
makes
> you
> > > happy, a
> > > > certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in
the
> > canal
> > > > represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the
kintic
> > > energy of
> > > > the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel storage
> > > system on a
> > > > grand scale?
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kirk...
> > > >
> > > > if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> > > > the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
> > > >
> > > > 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> > > > 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
> > > >
> > > > 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> > > > 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039
> Gallons/second
> > > > 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds =
897662.337662338
> GPM
> > > > 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> > > > each minute.
> > > >
> > > > the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are
rated
> at
> > > > 5000 HP
> > > > this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> > > > we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> > > > so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
> > > >
> > > > so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> > > > I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> > > > 32 MW input energy...
> > > >
> > > > the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of
> > energy.
> > > >
> > > > that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> > > > even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
> > > >
> comparison?
> > > >
> > > > are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here
to
> > group
> > > > together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems
that
> > our
> > > > world faces...
> > > >
> > > > even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate for
> the
> > > > resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still
be
> > > > equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional
point
> > > > along the canal.
> > > >
> > > > if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower
> velocity
> > > of
> > > > fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point
> each
> > > > second.
> > > >
> > > > it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
> > > understand
> > > > .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> > > > you may have attended a college that implanted the notion
that
> > this
> > > > is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind says
> > > > this is impossible you say it can not be.
> > > >
> > > > there are only two types of energy in physics...
> > > >
> > > > potential and kinetic...
> > > > yet the energy from each is the same.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of
the
> > > canal
> > > > at
> > > > > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and
further
> > back
> > > > with
> > > > > decreasing drop.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm
gives
> > drag
> > > > loss for
> > > > > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > > > > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3
> > inches
> > > > in a mile.
> > > > > Pretty big canal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick
> estimates
> > of
> > > > flow
> > > > > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> > > > 1/ref=
> > > > > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk...
> > > > >
> > > > > what happens at a waterfall?
> > > > > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > > > > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > > > > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > > > > again in a extremely short time.
> > > > > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > > > > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > > > > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through the
> > canal
> > > > > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not be
a
> > > slower
> > > > > rate of flow.
> > > > > because the wall friction only holds water close to the
walls
> > > > > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from
the
> > wall
> > > > > has less and less flow restriction.
> > > > > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just
> design a
> > > > > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > > > > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill up
> and
> > > fill
> > > > > up faster than you could count to 2.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is
> very
> > > > > different. All
> > > > > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the
canal
> the
> > > > less
> > > > > slope
> > > > > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets the
> > > needed
> > > > > slope. If
> > > > > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely long--
> but
> > > that
> > > > > isn't the
> > > > > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables
based
> on
> > > > wall
> > > > > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just look
> it
> > up
> > > > > without
> > > > > > calculating it if you want.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AMAZING
> > > > > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must have
> > > > > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height
> > differential
> > > > > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > > > > and that water must have a height differential to do this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > > > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > > > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the end
> you
> > > > > removed
> > > > > > the 2 ft section from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it
> seeks
> > > its
> > > > > > own level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > > > > of the flowing water.
> > > > > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the design
> > > > > > this resistance can be null.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the bottom
> and
> > > > sides
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force,
assuming
> it
> > > is
> > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall
height.
> > > This
> > > > > > also means
> > > > > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end
and
> > > enter
> > > > > the
> > > > > > high
> > > > > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps so
> 2000
> > > > miles
> > > > > > needs 20
> > > > > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc
pipe
> > > > > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > > > > so that you could have something resembling two canals.
> > > > > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > > > > for reference purposes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel down
> > > > > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a different
> > > colored
> > > > > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move
all
> > > > > > > the water in the canals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water
will
> > flow
> > > > > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take
the
> > > water
> > > > > out
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only
need
> to
> > > > > supply
> > > > > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from
the
> end
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue
> dyed
> > > > water
> > > > > > > in the pipe.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water
> > flowing
> > > to
> > > > > > you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic,
> but I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > understand how
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required to
> > > > > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I missed something?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• well I have succeeded in getting the word out where others have failed. as for the commedian part you fit that role much better. ... double as a ...
Message 17 of 26 , Jul 5, 2002
well I have succeeded in getting the word out where others have
failed.
as for the commedian part you fit that role much better.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> So not only have you succeeded where all others have failed, you
double as a
> comedian.
> Truly a legend in your own mind.
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 8:55 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> just stateing the facts.
> thats all.
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > So what is the purpose of this post?
> > Sounds more like network wrestling than engineering.
> > Fish or cut bait.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 7:30 PM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > you are incapable of proving me wrong.
> > this should be so easy for you yet you avoid it.
> > just like all the others.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "gearjammer123us"
<gearjammer123us@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > if you would like to discuss the physics then we can.
> > > lets do just that.
> > >
> > > we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.
> > >
> > > 2 we circulate the water in the 2 canals.
> > > we do this continously.
> > >
> > > 3 we measure the amount of input energy to circulate the water.
> > > we use the pumps that I supplied links to.
> > >
> > > 4 we measure the kinetic energy of the flowing water.
> > > we use KE=1/2mv^2
> > >
> > > after this we can move on to the ability of the kinetic energy
> > > of the flowing water to produce mechanical energy.
> > >
> > > are you game or just full of it.
> > > more than likely you will agree to do this.
> > > then you will quit as all others have.
> > > fearing your precious laws of physics will
> > > prove to have been broken.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
> > > > I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the
> rudeness
> > > comes
> > > > automatically.
> > > > The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't
get
> > out
> > > more
> > > > than you put in.
> > > > Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
> > > > Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kirk...
> > > > Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
> > > > that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
> > > > and then wait for it to cause wind.
> > > > and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
> > > > is the amount you put in building the sun...
> > > >
> > > > in other words simplt put... bullcrap.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > Very simple. Start with an empty canal.
> > > > > Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology
> makes
> > you
> > > > happy, a
> > > > > certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in
> the
> > > canal
> > > > > represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the
> kintic
> > > > energy of
> > > > > the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel
storage
> > > > system on a
> > > > > grand scale?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk...
> > > > >
> > > > > if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> > > > > the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
> > > > >
> > > > > 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> > > > > 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> > > > > 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039
> > Gallons/second
> > > > > 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds =
> 897662.337662338
> > GPM
> > > > > 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> > > > > each minute.
> > > > >
> > > > > the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are
> rated
> > at
> > > > > 5000 HP
> > > > > this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> > > > > we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> > > > > so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
> > > > >
> > > > > so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> > > > > I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> > > > > 32 MW input energy...
> > > > >
> > > > > the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of
> > > energy.
> > > > >
> > > > > that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> > > > > even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
> > > > >
> > comparison?
> > > > >
> > > > > are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here
> to
> > > group
> > > > > together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems
> that
> > > our
> > > > > world faces...
> > > > >
> > > > > even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate
for
> > the
> > > > > resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still
> be
> > > > > equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional
> point
> > > > > along the canal.
> > > > >
> > > > > if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower
> > velocity
> > > > of
> > > > > fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point
> > each
> > > > > second.
> > > > >
> > > > > it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
> > > > understand
> > > > > .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> > > > > you may have attended a college that implanted the notion
> that
> > > this
> > > > > is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind
says
> > > > > this is impossible you say it can not be.
> > > > >
> > > > > there are only two types of energy in physics...
> > > > >
> > > > > potential and kinetic...
> > > > > yet the energy from each is the same.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of
> the
> > > > canal
> > > > > at
> > > > > > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and
> further
> > > back
> > > > > with
> > > > > > decreasing drop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm
> gives
> > > drag
> > > > > loss for
> > > > > > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > > > > > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3
> > > inches
> > > > > in a mile.
> > > > > > Pretty big canal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick
> > estimates
> > > of
> > > > > flow
> > > > > > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> > > > > 1/ref=
> > > > > > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what happens at a waterfall?
> > > > > > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > > > > > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > > > > > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > > > > > again in a extremely short time.
> > > > > > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > > > > > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > > > > > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through
the
> > > canal
> > > > > > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not
be
> a
> > > > slower
> > > > > > rate of flow.
> > > > > > because the wall friction only holds water close to the
> walls
> > > > > > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from
> the
> > > wall
> > > > > > has less and less flow restriction.
> > > > > > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just
> > design a
> > > > > > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > > > > > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill
up
> > and
> > > > fill
> > > > > > up faster than you could count to 2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is
> > very
> > > > > > different. All
> > > > > > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the
> canal
> > the
> > > > > less
> > > > > > slope
> > > > > > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets
the
> > > > needed
> > > > > > slope. If
> > > > > > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely
long--
> > but
> > > > that
> > > > > > isn't the
> > > > > > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables
> based
> > on
> > > > > wall
> > > > > > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just
look
> > it
> > > up
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > calculating it if you want.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AMAZING
> > > > > > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must
have
> > > > > > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height
> > > differential
> > > > > > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > > > > > and that water must have a height differential to do
this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > > > > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > > > > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the
end
> > you
> > > > > > removed
> > > > > > > the 2 ft section from.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it
> > seeks
> > > > its
> > > > > > > own level.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > > > > > of the flowing water.
> > > > > > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the
design
> > > > > > > this resistance can be null.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the
bottom
> > and
> > > > > sides
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force,
> assuming
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall
> height.
> > > > This
> > > > > > > also means
> > > > > > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end
> and
> > > > enter
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps
so
> > 2000
> > > > > miles
> > > > > > > needs 20
> > > > > > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc
> pipe
> > > > > > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > > > > > so that you could have something resembling two
canals.
> > > > > > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > > > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > > > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > > > > > for reference purposes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel
down
> > > > > > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a
different
> > > > colored
> > > > > > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move
> all
> > > > > > > > the water in the canals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water
> will
> > > flow
> > > > > > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take
> the
> > > > water
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only
> need
> > to
> > > > > > supply
> > > > > > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from
> the
> > end
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue
> > dyed
> > > > > water
> > > > > > > > in the pipe.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water
> > > flowing
> > > > to
> > > > > > > you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic,
> > but I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > understand how
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required
to
> > > > > > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I missed something?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
• What word? That the instant you turn the pump on the canal is at velocity instantly with a power gain of what? Complete and utter rubbish. Better stick with
Message 18 of 26 , Jul 5, 2002
What word? That the instant you turn the pump on the canal is at velocity
instantly with a power gain of what?
Complete and utter rubbish. Better stick with things you are a bit more
familiar with.
ALso your story is obvious fiction. Where did they have megawatt pumps 250
years ago? Powered with what? So Cal Edison?
Don't know what your are smoking but it is time to dry out. You have lost
it.

Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@...]
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 8:41 AM
To: AMBIENTENERGY@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals

well I have succeeded in getting the word out where others have
failed.
as for the commedian part you fit that role much better.

--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> So not only have you succeeded where all others have failed, you
double as a
> comedian.
> Truly a legend in your own mind.
>
> Kirk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 8:55 PM
> To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
>
>
> just stateing the facts.
> thats all.
>
>
>
> --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > So what is the purpose of this post?
> > Sounds more like network wrestling than engineering.
> > Fish or cut bait.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 7:30 PM
> > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> >
> >
> > you are incapable of proving me wrong.
> > this should be so easy for you yet you avoid it.
> > just like all the others.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "gearjammer123us"
<gearjammer123us@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > if you would like to discuss the physics then we can.
> > > lets do just that.
> > >
> > > we dont include the energy required to fill the canals.
> > >
> > > 2 we circulate the water in the 2 canals.
> > > we do this continously.
> > >
> > > 3 we measure the amount of input energy to circulate the water.
> > > we use the pumps that I supplied links to.
> > >
> > > 4 we measure the kinetic energy of the flowing water.
> > > we use KE=1/2mv^2
> > >
> > > after this we can move on to the ability of the kinetic energy
> > > of the flowing water to produce mechanical energy.
> > >
> > > are you game or just full of it.
> > > more than likely you will agree to do this.
> > > then you will quit as all others have.
> > > fearing your precious laws of physics will
> > > prove to have been broken.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > Do you want to discuss the physics or be abusive?
> > > > I suppose when you are defending a flawed hypothesis the
> rudeness
> > > comes
> > > > automatically.
> > > > The circulating energy is provided externally and you can't
get
> > out
> > > more
> > > > than you put in.
> > > > Forget strawman arguments re suns and winds.
> > > > Thinking otherwise is bovine scatology.
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 3:37 PM
> > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kirk...
> > > > Where did you get your inteligence.. wallmart?
> > > > that is like saying that you need to first build a sun
> > > > and then wait for it to cause wind.
> > > > and then the total amount of energy you can get from the wind
> > > > is the amount you put in building the sun...
> > > >
> > > > in other words simplt put... bullcrap.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > Very simple. Start with an empty canal.
> > > > > Each second you accelerate or move, whatever terminology
> makes
> > you
> > > > happy, a
> > > > > certain mass into the canal, When it is full the energy in
> the
> > > canal
> > > > > represents the total time the pump ran. It will equal the
> kintic
> > > > energy of
> > > > > the total canal less drag. No free energy. A flywheel
storage
> > > > system on a
> > > > > grand scale?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 2:30 PM
> > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk...
> > > > >
> > > > > if the water is being pumped out """ continously """
> > > > > the 2 ft slug of water is being pumped out every second...
> > > > >
> > > > > 50 ft wide X 20 ft deep = 1000 cu ft
> > > > > 1000 cu ft X 2 = 2000 cu ft per second.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2000 cu ft X 1728 = 3456000. cu inches
> > > > > 3456000.cu in / 231 ( 1 gallon ) = 14961.038961039
> > Gallons/second
> > > > > 14961.038961039 Gallons/second X 60 seconds =
> 897662.337662338
> > GPM
> > > > > 897,662 Gallons per minute are being removed from the canal
> > > > > each minute.
> > > > >
> > > > > the 800,000 GPM pumps I gave a link to for reference are
> rated
> > at
> > > > > 5000 HP
> > > > > this converts to 3.728499 MW of input energy for each pump.
> > > > > we are pumping 897,000 GPM not 800,000 GPM
> > > > > so there would be more energy required than the 5000 HP
> > > > >
> > > > > so I gave you 4MW each or 8 MW
> > > > > I now give you 8 MW each or 4 of these pumps.
> > > > > 32 MW input energy...
> > > > >
> > > > > the kinetic energy of the two flows of water is 54,000 MW of
> > > energy.
> > > > >
> > > > > that is 54,000 MW ie thousand not 54MW
> > > > > even if it were 54 MW there would still be a great increase.
> > > > >
> > comparison?
> > > > >
> > > > > are we here simply to flaunt our inteligence or are we here
> to
> > > group
> > > > > together to find inteligent answers to the energy problems
> that
> > > our
> > > > > world faces...
> > > > >
> > > > > even if the canal were made slightly larger to compensate
for
> > the
> > > > > resistance from canal wall/water the flow volume would still
> be
> > > > > equivalent to 2000 cu ft per second at any cross sectional
> point
> > > > > along the canal.
> > > > >
> > > > > if the canal were slightly larger there would be a slower
> > velocity
> > > > of
> > > > > fluid yet the same volume of fluid would flow past any point
> > each
> > > > > second.
> > > > >
> > > > > it is the simplicity of this example that your brain cannot
> > > > understand
> > > > > .... it is not complicated enought for you....
> > > > > you may have attended a college that implanted the notion
> that
> > > this
> > > > > is impossible and so if your eyes see green and your mind
says
> > > > > this is impossible you say it can not be.
> > > > >
> > > > > there are only two types of energy in physics...
> > > > >
> > > > > potential and kinetic...
> > > > > yet the energy from each is the same.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > True-- but the head on the 2 foot section is the depth of
> the
> > > > canal
> > > > > at
> > > > > > first. As it fills the drop is propagated further and
> further
> > > back
> > > > > with
> > > > > > decreasing drop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.ncpi.org/EngineeringManual/eng_manual02.htm
> gives
> > > drag
> > > > > loss for
> > > > > > sewer pipe. Pretty small canal.
> > > > > > The Mississippi has sections where the drop is less than 3
> > > inches
> > > > > in a mile.
> > > > > > Pretty big canal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The book that has it all--the tables allow for quick
> > estimates
> > > of
> > > > > flow
> > > > > > characteristics without having to hunt for the calculator.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070072477/qid=1025811837/sr=1-
> > > > > 1/ref=
> > > > > > sr_1_1/102-1988951-9596912
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:05 AM
> > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what happens at a waterfall?
> > > > > > if a 2 foot section of water is removed.
> > > > > > and " WATER DOES NOT STRETCH "
> > > > > > then you can count on that 2 foot section filling up
> > > > > > again in a extremely short time.
> > > > > > in fact you would never see a hole there where you took
> > > > > > the water out you wouldnt even notice much difference.
> > > > > > there might be a faster flow rate than 2 ft/sec through
the
> > > canal
> > > > > > because of the canal wall resistance but there would not
be
> a
> > > > slower
> > > > > > rate of flow.
> > > > > > because the wall friction only holds water close to the
> walls
> > > > > > and it only holds a single layer and each layer away from
> the
> > > wall
> > > > > > has less and less flow restriction.
> > > > > > if you find that the flow restriction is too great just
> > design a
> > > > > > larger canal dont throw away the idea.
> > > > > > you can bet your ass that that 2 foot section would fill
up
> > and
> > > > fill
> > > > > > up faster than you could count to 2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > > A canal is much smaller and the ratio of mass to wall is
> > very
> > > > > > different. All
> > > > > > > the mass is accelerated by gravity so the larger the
> canal
> > the
> > > > > less
> > > > > > slope
> > > > > > > needed all other things being equal. The velocity sets
the
> > > > needed
> > > > > > slope. If
> > > > > > > it can be infinitely slow then it can be infinitely
long--
> > but
> > > > that
> > > > > > isn't the
> > > > > > > real world. The data is published in hydraulic tables
> based
> > on
> > > > > wall
> > > > > > > roughness which of course affects drag. You can just
look
> > it
> > > up
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > calculating it if you want.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 9:21 AM
> > > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AMAZING
> > > > > > > so when the 1000 mile mississippi river flows it must
have
> > > > > > > a wall height of 10 miles correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > fact is it doesnt even have a wall height or height
> > > differential
> > > > > > > over 50 feet much less 10 miles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > are there any 10 mile high mountains.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you are asumming that water will not seek its own level.
> > > > > > > and that water must have a height differential to do
this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if the 2000 mile long canal were perfectly level.
> > > > > > > and its cross sectional area were 50 ft X 20 ft
> > > > > > > and you removed a section from one end 2 feet in lenght.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > all of the water in that canal would move towards the
end
> > you
> > > > > > removed
> > > > > > > the 2 ft section from.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > one of the first things you learn about water is that it
> > seeks
> > > > its
> > > > > > > own level.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > your required 20 mile wall height is null.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the wall resistance only affects a miniscule inch or two
> > > > > > > of the flowing water.
> > > > > > > and if this miniscule amount is calculated into the
design
> > > > > > > this resistance can be null.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "kirk" <kirk@3...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 2000 miles won't work. The water has drag on the
bottom
> > and
> > > > > sides
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > canal. The effective head to provide this force,
> assuming
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > > level for 2000 miles, is limited by the canal wall
> height.
> > > > This
> > > > > > > also means
> > > > > > > > when you want to return you have to leave the low end
> and
> > > > enter
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > end. You probably need a 1 in 100 grade to keep 2fps
so
> > 2000
> > > > > miles
> > > > > > > needs 20
> > > > > > > > miles of head. Pretty tall canal walls.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kirk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: gearjammer123us [mailto:gearjammer123us@y...]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 8:58 PM
> > > > > > > > To: AMBIENTENERGY@y...
> > > > > > > > Subject: [AMBIENTENERGY] Re: Canals
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > hello boyd didnt know you had a group too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > well first if you were to assemble a 1000 ft long pvc
> pipe
> > > > > > > > then cut it down the middle.
> > > > > > > > so that you could have something resembling two
canals.
> > > > > > > > place them side by side or paralelle to each other.
> > > > > > > > and fill them both with water.
> > > > > > > > place some red dye in one and blue dye in the other
> > > > > > > > for reference purposes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > now get a friend to help you and each of you kneel
down
> > > > > > > > at one end of the model canals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if each of you lift one ounce of water from a
different
> > > > colored
> > > > > > > > water and place it in the other color water side.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > you will move all of the water in the model canals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if you have a pump doing this you can continously move
> all
> > > > > > > > the water in the canals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > it does not matter how long the canals are the water
> will
> > > flow
> > > > > > > > from the end you put the water in to the end you take
> the
> > > > water
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > in each of the half pipes...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so if this canal were 2000 miles long you would only
> need
> > to
> > > > > > supply
> > > > > > > > the amount of energy required to lift the water from
> the
> > end
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > red dyed water in the pipe to the begining of the blue
> > dyed
> > > > > water
> > > > > > > > in the pipe.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > there would be water flowing to your friend and water
> > > flowing
> > > > to
> > > > > > > you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > you could take energy from this flow of water.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd Cantrell" <bmc@p...>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I looked at the canal Map and think it is fantastic,
> > but I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > understand how
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "the same exact amount of energy would be required
to
> > > > > > > > > transport cargo or people no matter the distance."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I missed something?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> > 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
> 6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date:
6/13/2002
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
AMBIENTENERGY-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 6/13/2002
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.