water tower?

A syphon cannot raise anything.
It can only let it fall.

0 Replies

Vengoropatubus wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
A siphon is no better than just having the water fall down a tube.

Well right, but the question was can you raise water into a tower that runs a generator and keeps pumping water up to itself. I see no reason why a siphon couldn't supply water to a tower and turn a generator, and it seems to me that this satisfies the conditions of the problem which are to raise water into a tower, for that tower not to empty out, and for the water moving through this system to power a generator.

A syphon cannot raise anything.
It can only let it fall.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

This seems to be a jumble of references to water supply installations and hydro-electric installations.
Don't mix them up.

In hydro installations, water is only pumped uphill to use spare power from the grid, when demand is low but thermal generators are still working (because it's difficult and inefficient to shut them down).
The stored water can then be used to generate electricity for the peaks in demand. BUT the efficiency of the arrangement is low...I don't know how low, but less than 50% I guess.

You're talking about pumped-storage, that's a pretty neat system, but not what I was referring to. The link, and quote, I gave was about the California Aqueduct, which is a combo of water supply/hydro-electric, as is the entire SWP {State Water Project}.

Here is a quote from one of the DWR's pages....California Dept. of Water Resources.

"The energy needed to operate the SWP comes from a combination of its own hydroelectric and coal-fired generation plants and power purchased from other utilities. The project's eight hydroelectric power plants, including three pumping-generating plants, and a coal-fired plant produce enough electricity in a normal year to supply about two-thirds of the project's necessary power."

http://wwwswpao.water.ca.gov/publications/bulletin/96/text/intro.html

0 Replies

"The energy needed to operate the SWP comes from a combination of its own hydroelectric and coal-fired generation plants and power purchased from other utilities. The project's eight hydroelectric power plants, including three pumping-generating plants, and a coal-fired plant produce enough electricity in a normal year to supply about two-thirds of the project's necessary power"

So this describes a water-supply project which can generate two-thirds of its own power needs using its own hydro-electric and coal-fired power generating plants, and it buys in the remaining third from the state energy suppliers.

Fair enough.

0 Replies

And the supplier can be guaranteed to charge what the traffic will bear and it is therefore the demand that is pushing energy prices up and not anything else. Crude oil is a very useless item when nobody wants any. You would have to pay to have it shifted off your premises in normal evolutionary circumstances.

And it's really quite funny watching those who demand most energy whinge about the price of it. It's nearly as funny as the guy in the traffic jam complaining about all these cars on the road.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Vengoropatubus wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
A siphon is no better than just having the water fall down a tube.

Well right, but the question was can you raise water into a tower that runs a generator and keeps pumping water up to itself. I see no reason why a siphon couldn't supply water to a tower and turn a generator, and it seems to me that this satisfies the conditions of the problem which are to raise water into a tower, for that tower not to empty out, and for the water moving through this system to power a generator.

A syphon cannot raise anything.
It can only let it fall.

And what does a siphon do with the water before it lets it fall? It raises it. It doesn't permanently raise it, but we're not talking about a permanent rise.

0 Replies

Vengo wrote-

Quote:

we're not talking about a permanent rise.

I should jolly well hope not on a site where innocent eyes can peep into.

0 Replies

Vengoropatubus wrote:

McTag wrote:
Vengoropatubus wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
A siphon is no better than just having the water fall down a tube.

Well right, but the question was can you raise water into a tower that runs a generator and keeps pumping water up to itself. I see no reason why a siphon couldn't supply water to a tower and turn a generator, and it seems to me that this satisfies the conditions of the problem which are to raise water into a tower, for that tower not to empty out, and for the water moving through this system to power a generator.

A syphon cannot raise anything.
It can only let it fall.

And what does a siphon do with the water before it lets it fall? It raises it. It doesn't permanently raise it, but we're not talking about a permanent rise.

Oh yes we are.
Smile

I don't think I can debate this further with you. If you think a syphon can "raise water into a tower", go ahead and think that. Better, build a model in your garage and invite the scientific world to see.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Vengoropatubus wrote:
McTag wrote:
Vengoropatubus wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
A siphon is no better than just having the water fall down a tube.

Well right, but the question was can you raise water into a tower that runs a generator and keeps pumping water up to itself. I see no reason why a siphon couldn't supply water to a tower and turn a generator, and it seems to me that this satisfies the conditions of the problem which are to raise water into a tower, for that tower not to empty out, and for the water moving through this system to power a generator.

A syphon cannot raise anything.
It can only let it fall.

And what does a siphon do with the water before it lets it fall? It raises it. It doesn't permanently raise it, but we're not talking about a permanent rise.

Oh yes we are.

I don't think I can debate this further with you. If you think a syphon can "raise water into a tower", go ahead and think that. Better, build a model in your garage and invite the scientific world to see.

Are you contesting the idea that a fully enclosed, filled water basin with tubes on either side can be used as part of a siphon system, or are you suggesting that the water moving through a siphon system just magically appears at the top without being raised from the level of its higher reservoir?

Perhaps I should clarify that I don't believe for a second that an empty siphon system can magically raise water.

0 Replies

As I said before, I don't think I can debate this further with you.

Send me pictures of your working model, bearing in mind the problem was to generate electricity by hydraulic means.
Show me how the "syphon" lifts water into the "tower" to drive the turbine & generator.
If you can do it, it's a winner, believe me.

0 Replies

A syphon that raises a liquid without letting it fall at the same time is akin to a magnet with only one pole, or a propeller driven aircraft that exceeds the speed of sound in level flight.

Syphons have uses. This isn't one of them.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

A syphon that raises a liquid without letting it fall at the same time is akin to a magnet with only one pole, or a propeller driven aircraft that exceeds the speed of sound in level flight.

But the falling liquid is what I'm proposing to be the source of energy. What I'm proposing is along the lines of this(if you'll excuse the MS paint):

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3479/turbinexj3.th.jpg

0 Replies

Vengo,

You can't get something for nothing.

Let's explain this principle in context of your drawing. I will assume you understand that in both paths the water can take... it moves from left to right.

The siphon affect can work in this case because you obey the rule. The end of the outflow tube is lower than the intake tube. This means there is a net change of potential energy equal to mgh (I am not going to put the delta in for h but you can pretend it is there), where m is the mass of water flowing and h exactly what you have labeled.

The problem is the turbine... in order to get energy from the turbine, the water needs to put force on it (meaning the turbine will have to resist the flow of the water). If you try to take too much energy... the turbine will have too much resistance and the water not flow through the "siphon" (meaning the turbine will simply be stuck).

Notice I said "too much energy"... you can theoretically get a little energy out of the turbine in the drawing your propose.

Well, here is your mistake... the most energy you can possibly get from this setup is mgh

Note that this is the exact same amount of energy you could get from putting the turbine (or a simpler water wheel) in the main water flow without using the siphon.

The siphon buys you absolutely nothing as far as energy goes. In practice-- because the mass flowing through the siphon is far less... and the cost friction, you will get more energy without it.

If you want to discuss this further... you will have to run the numbers. You need to figure out how much work the water inside the tube can possibly do to the turbine without stopping the siphoning-- but I already told you the answer.

You can't get something for nothing.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Well, here is your mistake... the most energy you can possibly get from this setup is mgh

I don't recall ever claiming it could get more than mgh, only that some energy could be derived. I don't believe I claimed that more energy could be harnessed from my setup than from a turbine in the flowing water itself, only that it was possible to raise water into a tower, have that water replace itself, and to power some sort of generator.

0 Replies

I should mention in this setup that you have to put the water in the top reservoir before you start the siphon.

This is not a way to move water from a low point to a high point (you are really just exchanging water... but what's the point.

Of course if you have flowing water (i.e. an endless supply of water on a slope) then there are several ways to raise some of the water-- without a siphon.

But that moving water has energy that can be harnessed is no secret.

If you are not claiming to "make" energy (i.e. end up with more energy than you started out with)... then I have no argument; but I also don't see the point.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I should mention in this setup that you have to put the water in the top reservoir before you start the siphon.

This is not a way to move water from a low point to a high point (you are really just exchanging water... but what's the point.

Of course if you have flowing water (i.e. an endless supply of water on a slope) then there are several ways to raise some of the water-- without a siphon.

But that moving water has energy that can be harnessed is no secret.

If you are not claiming to "make" energy (i.e. end up with more energy than you started out with)... then I have no argument; but I also don't see the point.

Well, the point was mostly just to find a way to satisfy the conditions of the stated problem which everyone was jumping up to say was impossible. My solution wasn't particularly useful, but it is a way of raising water into a tower(since water has to be replaced to keep the siphon effect going), and then using that water to power a turbine, even if there's no benefit over just putting a turbine at the bottom of the fall.