| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Fran" |
| Date: |
12 May 2007 06:46:40 AM |
| Object: |
Could hot air be the answer? |
Sorry for the pun, but just recently I saw a feature on the use of
rising air channels in buildings turning turbines, exploiting
temperature differentials between air at ground level and air up high.
Apparently, air temperature falls roughly 1 degree C for every 100m.
Outside of towns in our outback in Australia, ambient temperatures
during the day even in winter typically average 35 - 40 degrees C.
Suppose we built a large heat absorbing area, covered in blackened
metal plates with some moltne saline mixture underneath it -- say 2500
sqm. Over it, we place a canopy -- perhaps perspex or something
similar that lets light through at about 3m above, elaving just a
small gap at the base for air to enter and leaving about 25 m external
clearance, so as to create a hot area surrounding it to diminish
fugitive air pushing out or dust being sucked in.
We place parabolic dishes around the side to concentrate the
insolation on the central area and in the middle we build a huge
cylindrical tower 2500 meteres high with a turbine at the top to allow
the heated air at the base to escape.
I know that there is a formula for energy gathered by a turbine based
on factoring in wind speed, swept area and air density but I've no
idea how to calculate these in a setting like this. I don't know how
hot the air under the canopy would get -- clearly it whould be a hell
of a lot hotter than the ambinet temperature and the temperature
differential should be very significant -- but how much?
Any ideas?
Fran
.
|
|
| User: "George Ghio" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
12 May 2007 10:44:14 PM |
|
|
Fran wrote:
Sorry for the pun, but just recently I saw a feature on the use of
rising air channels in buildings turning turbines, exploiting
temperature differentials between air at ground level and air up high.
Apparently, air temperature falls roughly 1 degree C for every 100m.
Outside of towns in our outback in Australia, ambient temperatures
during the day even in winter typically average 35 - 40 degrees C.
Suppose we built a large heat absorbing area, covered in blackened
metal plates with some moltne saline mixture underneath it -- say 2500
sqm. Over it, we place a canopy -- perhaps perspex or something
similar that lets light through at about 3m above, elaving just a
small gap at the base for air to enter and leaving about 25 m external
clearance, so as to create a hot area surrounding it to diminish
fugitive air pushing out or dust being sucked in.
We place parabolic dishes around the side to concentrate the
insolation on the central area and in the middle we build a huge
cylindrical tower 2500 meteres high with a turbine at the top to allow
the heated air at the base to escape.
I know that there is a formula for energy gathered by a turbine based
on factoring in wind speed, swept area and air density but I've no
idea how to calculate these in a setting like this. I don't know how
hot the air under the canopy would get -- clearly it whould be a hell
of a lot hotter than the ambinet temperature and the temperature
differential should be very significant -- but how much?
Any ideas?
Fran
Already been done
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mauried" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
12 May 2007 03:54:38 PM |
|
|
On 12 May 2007 04:46:40 -0700, Fran <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for the pun, but just recently I saw a feature on the use of
rising air channels in buildings turning turbines, exploiting
temperature differentials between air at ground level and air up high.
Apparently, air temperature falls roughly 1 degree C for every 100m.
Outside of towns in our outback in Australia, ambient temperatures
during the day even in winter typically average 35 - 40 degrees C.
Suppose we built a large heat absorbing area, covered in blackened
metal plates with some moltne saline mixture underneath it -- say 2500
sqm. Over it, we place a canopy -- perhaps perspex or something
similar that lets light through at about 3m above, elaving just a
small gap at the base for air to enter and leaving about 25 m external
clearance, so as to create a hot area surrounding it to diminish
fugitive air pushing out or dust being sucked in.
We place parabolic dishes around the side to concentrate the
insolation on the central area and in the middle we build a huge
cylindrical tower 2500 meteres high with a turbine at the top to allow
the heated air at the base to escape.
I know that there is a formula for energy gathered by a turbine based
on factoring in wind speed, swept area and air density but I've no
idea how to calculate these in a setting like this. I don't know how
hot the air under the canopy would get -- clearly it whould be a hell
of a lot hotter than the ambinet temperature and the temperature
differential should be very significant -- but how much?
Any ideas?
Fran
Already being done.
http://www.enviromission.com.au/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
12 May 2007 08:38:29 PM |
|
|
Already being done.http://www.enviromission.com.au/
I still don't see the thermodynamic advantage of a high tower.
Just place the turbine over the hot air and call it a day.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
13 May 2007 05:01:59 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 11:38 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Already being done.http://www.enviromission.com.au/
I still don't see the thermodynamic advantage of a high tower.
Just place the turbine over the hot air and call it a day.
Bret Cahill
Temperature differential ought to mean a stronger updraft (more pull)
from the top and more speed when it hits the trubine.
Fran
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
13 May 2007 10:50:51 AM |
|
|
I still don't see the thermodynamic advantage of a high tower.
Just place the turbine over the hot air and call it a day.
Temperature differential ought to mean a stronger updraft (more pull)
from the top and more speed when it hits the trubine.
The air undergoes adiabatic expansion rising in the tower so the
temperature drops before it reaches the turbine.
Adiabatic expansion of air:
T2/T1 = (P2/P1)^0.286
Maybe the air is so hot just above the desert floor, as compared to a
few hundred meters, the tower helps out.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
14 May 2007 02:20:59 PM |
|
|
On May 12, 7:46 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for the pun, but just recently I saw a feature on the use of
rising air channels in buildings turning turbines, exploiting
temperature differentials between air at ground level and air up high.
Apparently, air temperature falls roughly 1 degree C for every 100m.
Outside of towns in our outback in Australia, ambient temperatures
during the day even in winter typically average 35 - 40 degrees C.
Suppose we built a large heat absorbing area, covered in blackened
metal plates with some moltne saline mixture underneath it -- say 2500
sqm. Over it, we place a canopy -- perhaps perspex or something
similar that lets light through at about 3m above, elaving just a
small gap at the base for air to enter and leaving about 25 m external
clearance, so as to create a hot area surrounding it to diminish
fugitive air pushing out or dust being sucked in.
We place parabolic dishes around the side to concentrate the
insolation on the central area and in the middle we build a huge
cylindrical tower 2500 meteres high with a turbine at the top to allow
the heated air at the base to escape.
I know that there is a formula for energy gathered by a turbine based
on factoring in wind speed, swept area and air density but I've no
idea how to calculate these in a setting like this. I don't know how
hot the air under the canopy would get -- clearly it whould be a hell
of a lot hotter than the ambinet temperature and the temperature
differential should be very significant -- but how much?
Any ideas?
Fran
A similar, but simpler idea has been proposed as a solar power plant.
It consists of an hyperbolic tower with turbine at the top, surrounded
by
a blacktop circle with clear canopy to direct the heated air into the
base
of the tower.
of
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
12 May 2007 02:04:32 PM |
|
|
What does the tower do? Just locate the turbine above the hot air.
Some Israeli company thinks rain can be created by covering the ground
with black fabric. The sun heats a sea breeze 50 C, rises 3,000 m,
cools and condenses as rain 15 km away.
Australians could use that idea for rain near coastal areas but it
might also be used to generate power.
The thermocycle is Brayton/Joule
Isobaric heating: 40 C - 90 C
Adiabatic expansion: 90 C - 53 C; 1 bar to 0.69 bar
Isobaric rejection of heat: 53 C - 10 C
Adiabatic compression: 10 C - 40 C; 0.69 bar - 1 bar
You'ld need several km^2 just to get 100 mega watts.
I don't know how the light would get under the turbine, maybe a
heliostat.
The turbine would be huge with low rpm. You could put a restaurant in
the center and make it into a tourist attraction.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vaughn Simon" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
12 May 2007 05:01:39 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178996672.704775.217120@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Some Israeli company thinks rain can be created by covering the ground
with black fabric. The sun heats a sea breeze 50 C, rises 3,000 m,
cools and condenses as rain 15 km away.
Cool! A daily 10,000' thermal, always in the same place. That idea will
be really popular with the local sailplane pilots.
Vaughn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
12 May 2007 07:17:04 PM |
|
|
=A0 =A0 =A0Cool! =A0A daily 10,000' thermal, always in the same place. =
=A0That idea will
be really popular with the local sailplane pilots.
Line commercial air routes with them to save fuel.
That way we can take care of all our water, grid power and
transportation problems with one solution.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
12 May 2007 07:44:11 PM |
|
|
On floating platforms out in the ocean the clouds would reflect
sunlight during the day and reduce heat trapping humidity at night.
The solution to global warming might not just be cheap, it may solve a
lot of other problems.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: Could hot air be the answer? |
12 May 2007 06:10:07 PM |
|
|
On May 13, 8:01 am, "Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESS...@att.FAKE.net>
wrote:
"Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178996672.704775.217120@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Some Israeli company thinks rain can be created by covering the ground
with black fabric. The sun heats a sea breeze 50 C, rises 3,000 m,
cools and condenses as rain 15 km away.
Cool! A daily 10,000' thermal, always in the same place. That idea will
be really popular with the local sailplane pilots.
Vaughn
Fantastic idea. I smell corporate sponsorship.
International Festivals of the Air, product placement, TV rights,
Richard Branson etc ...
Who will do it first?
Fran
.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|