Another Pipeline Believer

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Jul 30, 3:03 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"BJ Conner" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Jul 30, 11:41 am, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message

...

Sorta makes a boy nostalgic for the good old days (say, circa 1969
or
thereabouts) when he could just walk across......at any time of
year.

Wolfgang

Of course if TBone's scheme could be made to work, you could walk
across
again, as all the water would be in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, etc.
where
it
would obviously have more value than where it is now. And think of
all
the
additional arable land that would become available, not just in the
former
desert areas, but in the newly exposed lake beds. (and just in case
there
is
someone out there that needs this) 8)

Bob Weinberger

T-Bone would like the NAWAPA. It's not completely dead.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/eco...s2.html#nawapa

Thus demonstrating once again that there is no idea so stupid that it
cannot
garner widespread support.

The American west doesn't need MORE water. What it needs is a few tens
of
millions LESS human parasites.

Wolfgang

If you actually knew how to read and carry on a civil discussion you
would know that the 'water grid' of which I am a proponent would
simply balance the abundant water we have. As I sit in Dallas this
evening Texas is a drenched mess. In other places there is drought and
receding water levels. There is always too much water someplace and
always not enough in others. Yet there is no more or less water
available to the planet now than there ever has been in history. Water
defines 'renewable resource'. You simply can't waste it. My basic
point is that we should have the basic plumbing of this great planet
figured out by now.

O.k., let's cut through the bull****, shall we? Yes, it is certainly true
that I COULD pretend to take you seriously and, yes, it is conceivable that
I exert enough influence here that some others might also do so as a result.
But at some deep down level you KNOW that this would not, ultimately, help
you at all in dealing with your issues.......right?

Wolfgang

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
ps.com...

Since wind is a vital part of the respiration of the planet it's not
clear what the immediate affect of robbing the wind of its power would
be. It could be the worst ecological disaster we've ever created.

Put a windmill wherever a tree was cut down. Call it "restoration."

Moron.

Wolfgang

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Jul 26, 6:10 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Jul 25, 7:46 pm, daytripper wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:50:48 -0000, Halfordian Golfer

wrote:

Check this out:

""What this project does is it uses pipes like this to go downstream
and collect it; work against gravity to bring it back up. And then
we'll treat it and flow it through our system back to the South
Platte," said Binney."

That's right...."work against gravity"...read it and weap boys.

From:http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=74260

I think a water grid is easily within grips. No drought, no flooding,
just good, clean water for all.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

Oooooh! Magical Pipes, defying gravity!

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTT!

El Wrongo strikes again.

http://www.auroragov.org/stellent/gr...map/021665.pdf

See all those pumping stations, Tim?

/daytripper (ahahahahahahhaahaha!)

My point has always been that pumping was cost effective if other ways
couldn't be made to work. This just proves it. I still think it's
possible to used staged siphon but I acknowledge that's way out there.
So, each little pump station has it's own solar grid and water is
going, well, anywhere it needs to. No more flood, no more drought just
abundant, safe water for all.

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

It is just not the cash cost, but how much water is available. The
Ogallala
Aquifer is a falling level of water. Was originally recharged by the
water
that seeped through buffalo wallows. The buffalo broke though the clay
layer allowing the water to flow. Very little recharging these days. So
pipelines from where the water is may be the only viable option. Or a
pipeline to allow the water to get to the aquifer you are pumping from.

This seems so, so obvious to me that I simply don't understand how
anyone could question it.

As concise and accurate a statement of your fundamental problem as any
reasonable person could wish for.

Wolfgang

On Aug 2, 8:28 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

ps.com...



On Jul 26, 6:10 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jul 25, 7:46 pm, daytripper wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:50:48 -0000, Halfordian Golfer

wrote:

Check this out:

""What this project does is it uses pipes like this to go downstream
and collect it; work against gravity to bring it back up. And then
we'll treat it and flow it through our system back to the South
Platte," said Binney."

That's right...."work against gravity"...read it and weap boys.

From:http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=74260

I think a water grid is easily within grips. No drought, no flooding,
just good, clean water for all.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

Oooooh! Magical Pipes, defying gravity!

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTT!

El Wrongo strikes again.

http://www.auroragov.org/stellent/gr...map/021665.pdf

See all those pumping stations, Tim?

/daytripper (ahahahahahahhaahaha!)

My point has always been that pumping was cost effective if other ways
couldn't be made to work. This just proves it. I still think it's
possible to used staged siphon but I acknowledge that's way out there.
So, each little pump station has it's own solar grid and water is
going, well, anywhere it needs to. No more flood, no more drought just
abundant, safe water for all.

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

It is just not the cash cost, but how much water is available. The
Ogallala
Aquifer is a falling level of water. Was originally recharged by the
water
that seeped through buffalo wallows. The buffalo broke though the clay
layer allowing the water to flow. Very little recharging these days. So
pipelines from where the water is may be the only viable option. Or a
pipeline to allow the water to get to the aquifer you are pumping from.

This seems so, so obvious to me that I simply don't understand how
anyone could question it.

As concise and accurate a statement of your fundamental problem as any
reasonable person could wish for.

Wolfgang

So, what do 'you' wish for Wolfman?

OBROFF: Jeff, the thought was that energy transfer is energy transfer
be it from the wind or any other source. If you have a wind blowing up
a ridge in Wyoming and a field of windmills dampening it, what is the
reduced wind power on the lee side of the Ridge?

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel

OBROFF: Jeff, the thought was that energy transfer is energy transfer
be it from the wind or any other source. If you have a wind blowing up
a ridge in Wyoming and a field of windmills dampening it, what is the
reduced wind power on the lee side of the Ridge?

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel


i reckon it's just hard for me to "concept it". wrapping my brain
around the idea that wind is consumed on a large and static scale is
difficult...no doubt a deficit in my brain rather than the concept. i
know that wind gusts can be disrupted in a fixed time and space...as in
one sailboat covering another's wind as part of racing strategy...but
the idea that it is ingested or gone completely...smothered...so as to
alter climate or "respiration" is what i'm trying to grasp. certainly
there are microcosms or spaces within mountain ranges and ridges where
wind is disrupted in the manner that concerns you...what is the effect?

are the deserts in east washington a product of prevailing wind
disruption by the mountain ranges?

don't windmills allow large amounts of wind to seep between the blades?
does wind really operate in the linear and constant manner necessary for
the disruption you suggest?

is the lee side of the ridge on one day necessarily in the lee every day?

jeff (whose first wife, named "lee", was a lovely zephyr...and, yes, the
black rum is at work)

On Aug 2, 4:44 pm, jeff wrote:
OBROFF: Jeff, the thought was that energy transfer is energy transfer
be it from the wind or any other source. If you have a wind blowing up
a ridge in Wyoming and a field of windmills dampening it, what is the
reduced wind power on the lee side of the Ridge?

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel

i reckon it's just hard for me to "concept it". wrapping my brain
around the idea that wind is consumed on a large and static scale is
difficult...no doubt a deficit in my brain rather than the concept. i
know that wind gusts can be disrupted in a fixed time and space...as in
one sailboat covering another's wind as part of racing strategy...but
the idea that it is ingested or gone completely...smothered...so as to
alter climate or "respiration" is what i'm trying to grasp. certainly
there are microcosms or spaces within mountain ranges and ridges where
wind is disrupted in the manner that concerns you...what is the effect?

are the deserts in east washington a product of prevailing wind
disruption by the mountain ranges?

don't windmills allow large amounts of wind to seep between the blades?
does wind really operate in the linear and constant manner necessary for
the disruption you suggest?

is the lee side of the ridge on one day necessarily in the lee every day?

jeff (whose first wife, named "lee", was a lovely zephyr...and, yes, the
black rum is at work)

It's a good thing we invented steam and diesel powered ships. At the
current rate of global commerce we would have used up all the wind by
now.

BJ Conner wrote:


It's a good thing we invented steam and diesel powered ships. At the
current rate of global commerce we would have used up all the wind by
now.


well damn...and the journey was just beginning. took the wind right outa
my sails. you do have a nack for getting to the nub of it. g

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:35:26 -0000, Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On Jul 27, 7:29 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message

news:wW7qi.9186$XL4.3133@trndny04...





"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
Nothing at all wrong with the idea of siphoning water through a series of
reservoirs from the waterlogged east to the parched west. The science is
sound. The solution is a simply matter of engineering. All that really
needs to be done is the construction of the initial reservoir at about
12,000 feet.

However, there is a simpler, cheaper, and much more elegant solution.

Pueblo, being at a considerably greater elevation than, say, Milwaukee, a
pipeline could be constructed to carry water downhill from Pueblo to the
shore of Lake Michigan. The enormous pressure exerted by a 4220 foot
head (~4880 foot altitude at Pueblo - ~580 at Milwaukee) could be used to
push water back through a pipeline from Lake Michigan to Colorado. Thus,
a much smaller number of staged reservoirs would be needed to distribute
the water from Pueblo to the rest of the west, and there is the added
advantage of the 4000+ foot elevation gain, which would make the
siphoning that much easier and concomitantly cheaper.

Wolfgang
who supposes that some people just never will be able to grasp basic
physics.

When I read the above, I thought to myself, "sure as hell someone is going
to think he is actually serious". I was not wrong. However, I thought
that T-Bone would be the first to respond with a "See. Someone else agrees
with me."

At issue, I think, is not so much the question of seriousness as
impetuosity. Take, for example, that little matter from a few months ago of
idly tossing out the notion of farming Lake Erie for wind generated
electricity. Experience has taught me that I SHOULD allow such spur of the
moment thoughts to gestate for a while prior to setting them before the
general public. But I get excited, throw caution to the wind, and just let
fly without due consideration. I've had some time to think about that
particular idea in the ensuing weeks and, not surprisingly, have come to the
conclusion that some refinements are in order. If you recall, I suggested
that by spacing the individual windmills about 500 feet apart, we could fit
about a million of them out there. Well, it occurred to me that by
shortening the lengths of the vanes by a small amount, resulting in a
negligible loss in generating capacity, the distance between them could be
reduced to 250 feet while maintaining a sufficient safety margin. It takes
no great feat of imagination or arithmetic to come to the obvious and
correct conclusion that we could thus fit FOUR MILLION!! of them ****ers out
there!* HAH!

Wolfgang
*yes, yes, i know that a corridor, say a mile or so wide, would have to be
left across the length of the lake to facilitate shipping, and that similar
paths would need to be left vacant at each port of consequence. so, we
sacrifice (if my map reading skills are up to the task) something like
23,641 generators. this leaves us with a still not entirely insignificant
total of 3,976,359.


Since wind is a vital part of the respiration of the planet it's not
clear what the immediate affect of robbing the wind of its power would
be. It could be the worst ecological disaster we've ever created.

Bone

Wow.

Just so I get your position(s) correct, you have no qualms about
changing the ecology of North America by "shifting" where the water
is. But you see a potential, possibly *the* worst, ecological disaster
from wind turbines?

My meager understanding of metrology, as it pertains to wind, is that
wind is a result of an area of high pressure air seeking an area of
low pressure air. That would be some feat indeed if you could impede
that on any significant level.

You remind me of some politician years ago that wanted to divert water
from the Columbia River to his state, saying that all that water
entering the sea was being wasted. Guess he never got down to see the
estuary that that plan would have effected? The Colorado River Delta
is looking better nowadays, but it sure went through some hard times,
yes?

Don

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 2, 8:28 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

ps.com...



On Jul 26, 6:10 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jul 25, 7:46 pm, daytripper wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:50:48 -0000, Halfordian Golfer

wrote:

Check this out:

""What this project does is it uses pipes like this to go
downstream
and collect it; work against gravity to bring it back up. And then
we'll treat it and flow it through our system back to the South
Platte," said Binney."

That's right...."work against gravity"...read it and weap boys.

From:http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=74260

I think a water grid is easily within grips. No drought, no
flooding,
just good, clean water for all.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

Oooooh! Magical Pipes, defying gravity!

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTT!

El Wrongo strikes again.

http://www.auroragov.org/stellent/gr...map/021665.pdf

See all those pumping stations, Tim?

/daytripper (ahahahahahahhaahaha!)

My point has always been that pumping was cost effective if other
ways
couldn't be made to work. This just proves it. I still think it's
possible to used staged siphon but I acknowledge that's way out
there.
So, each little pump station has it's own solar grid and water is
going, well, anywhere it needs to. No more flood, no more drought
just
abundant, safe water for all.

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

It is just not the cash cost, but how much water is available. The
Ogallala
Aquifer is a falling level of water. Was originally recharged by the
water
that seeped through buffalo wallows. The buffalo broke though the
clay
layer allowing the water to flow. Very little recharging these days.
So
pipelines from where the water is may be the only viable option. Or a
pipeline to allow the water to get to the aquifer you are pumping
from.

This seems so, so obvious to me that I simply don't understand how
anyone could question it.

As concise and accurate a statement of your fundamental problem as any
reasonable person could wish for.

Wolfgang

So, what do 'you' wish for Wolfman?

Whirled peas, mostly.

Wolfgang

"jeff" wrote in message
...

OBROFF: Jeff, the thought was that energy transfer is energy transfer
be it from the wind or any other source. If you have a wind blowing up
a ridge in Wyoming and a field of windmills dampening it, what is the
reduced wind power on the lee side of the Ridge?

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel


i reckon it's just hard for me to "concept it". wrapping my brain around
the idea that wind is consumed on a large and static scale is
difficult...no doubt a deficit in my brain rather than the concept. i
know that wind gusts can be disrupted in a fixed time and space...as in
one sailboat covering another's wind as part of racing strategy...but the
idea that it is ingested or gone completely...smothered...so as to alter
climate or "respiration" is what i'm trying to grasp. certainly there are
microcosms or spaces within mountain ranges and ridges where wind is
disrupted in the manner that concerns you...what is the effect?

are the deserts in east washington a product of prevailing wind disruption
by the mountain ranges?

don't windmills allow large amounts of wind to seep between the blades?
does wind really operate in the linear and constant manner necessary for
the disruption you suggest?

is the lee side of the ridge on one day necessarily in the lee every day?

Interesting questions, one and all, but they betray a misplaced concern,
doubtless engendered by.....um.....shall we say a certain lack of
sophistication in basic engineering principles? The trouble is not that
there isn't enough wind to go around. No, the trouble is that the wind
isn't evenly (and equitably) distributed. One day we have an excess in one
neighborhood while at the same time there is a dearth in another. Another
day, the situation will be reversed. With the experience gained in the
construction and implementation of a continent wide water grid, a similar
project for wind would be child's play.....after all, wind is a great deal
lighter (and correspondingly easier and cheaper to transport, right?) than
water. Moreover, the power required to move all that wind will be
absolutely free. Remember that the water grid depends on siphons to move
the water from Lake Michigan to Pueblo. Siphons, as any naif should clearly
understand, require nothing but gravity* for their motive force. The net
elevation gain (4000+ feet, for those who may have forgotten) represents an
enormous gain in energy potential......energy which can be used (bearing in
mind that all that water has to go back down some time or other) to generate
the electricity required to pump the wind to where it is needed.

jeff (whose first wife, named "lee", was a lovely zephyr...and, yes, the
black rum is at work)

Remind me sometime to give you my thoughts on a worldwide ethanol
distribution grid. I think I may have figured out a way to make it work.

Wolfgang
*yes, i am aware that it will take a LOT of gravity to move that much water
that far, resulting in temporary local scarcities. critics should try to
keep the big picture in mind. remember that the wind grid is merely a means
of assuring that there will always be plenty of it where needed to generate
electricity (and, of course, to pollinate those plants dependent on it)
which, added to that created by the falling water, will allow for the
cost-free operation of a continental gravity gird! sweet!