Mainly I was trying to figure out ahead of time if it would be worth building
one and seeing if it works. Turbulent flow needs to be avoided by using
large diameter pipes and polymer additives to the water. Effect of
temperature on air is definitely included. Mass of air is pretty negligible
compared to mass of water.

Ideally equal volumes of gas move down and up. This results in moving
more moles of gas down because the downward moving gas is colder.

The less gas moving up the better. The decreased density of hot water
means when all air flow is shut off (no bubbles in either pipe) water would
still flow because the heated water expands. So the expansion of hot water
means less hot high pressure air must be used up raising water back to top.

But once I realized that bubbles must be very small and hence huge settling
tanks are needed to provide time to separate the air bubbles, I suspect that
the cost per kilowatt is too high.

On 9/23/06, Brian White <gaiatechnician@...> wrote:
> Just wondering if you have factored in energy losses in the tromp and
> bubble pump due to turbelence? And the different densitys of the hot
> and cold water and hot and cold air? This means that your cold water
> column will be lower than your hot water coulmn.
> And heat exchangers never transfer all the heat without outside
> energy input.
> In manitoba, people already use the earth as a heat sink for the heat
> of the summer (Using ordinary heat exchangers, I believe, and pump
> the heat into the ground). They then extract some of it in the winter
> to keep their houses warm. This works because the temperature
> fluctuation there is so severe from summer to winter. The energy
> required to move the heat costs less (because it is less) than simply
> buying in heat from the electricity company.
> Brian
> --- In pulserpump@yahoogroups.com, "Archimedes
> Submerged" <archimerged@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Ask the designer/author why if it is such a wonderful
> > > machine that he has not built one to demonstrate its viability.
> >
> > It is a design project, not a working machine. Do you doubt it
> would
> > work given a larger deltaT? (just curious about where your
> objections
> > lie).
> >
> > > Advocacy talk is cheap, a genuine working example is hard to
> refute.
> >
> > This is not advocacy. This is scientific curiosity and
> imagination. Why
> > can't a machine use the available temperature differences? Are you
> > really sure one can't be designed that works? There is no
> fundamental
> > principle preventing it. A typical design (no doubt including this
> one)
> > fails because of _avoidable_ losses, not theoretically unavoidable
> effects.
> >
> > The trick is to figure out a way to avoid the losses without
> incurring other
> > losses in exchange.
> >
> > > The bubble pump air compressor described in posts 41 & 42
> incorporate
> > > some of the ideas of the hydraulic air compressor at Ragged
> Chutes but
> > > is an entirely different beast supposed to run on diurnal
> fluctuations
> > > of ambient air temperature. It will never go!
> > >
> >
> > The diurnal fluctuations are a _design goal_, not a statement that
> this design
> > actually works. Nowhere is it stated that the design works such
> low delta T.
> > So your news is no news at all.
> >
> > The goal is to think about various machines and learn where they go
> wrong.
> > In the case of the bubble pump / trompe, the problem is that the
> bubbles need
> > to be very tiny so that they move with the water. But such tiny
> bubbles take a
> > long time to separate from the water when this is needed.
> >
> > If you use larger bubbles, a larger delta T is needed because of
> losses due to
> > bubbles lagging behing the water in the trompe and leading the
> water in the
> > bubble pump.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>