h a l f b a k e r y"This may be bollocks, but it's lovely bollocks."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
So wind turbines, often to be found at sea, farm the natural
energy of the wind and convert it into electricity to be used
on the land via a dynamo. But it is well known that energy
requirements fluctuate according to time of day and other
variables which the wind is largely oblivious to, meaning
power has to be stored or wasted when demand is low. Some
hyrdopower systems even pump water up a
mountain during off-peak times, storing it as potential
energy
to unleash at peak times, though this clearly doesn't
represent
a green solution.
Perhaps the answer could involve storing the energy inside
the
turbines themselves? If you look at them, the are like giant
straws, while the windmill at the top likely has the power to
suck water up through that straw to the top.
While demand is low, the turbines can switch modes and
become a
pump, sucking sea water up inside
its shaft to be stored there. Later, when electricity is
required and the wind is dormant, the water can simply be
flushed down, turning another dynamo inside, with the flow
set
according to how much energy we need. Additional tanks or
height could be added to the top to accommodate extra
water. The turbines now essentially have their own
'batteries'
storing potential energy at its source for use at our
convenience.
Sets that contain themselves, AFA
https://plato.stanf...founded-set-theory/
[beanangel, Dec 21 2020]
[link]
|
| |
A useful weight of water at a useful height will put
enormous additional strain on the supporting structure of
the wind turbine. |
|
| |
A pump and a hydro-turbine built into each wind turbine
will involve much duplication of moving parts, many of
those moving parts being in constant contact with
corrosive salt water, even when not in use. |
|
| |
The bulk of the structure which holds the head of water
may be so great as to impair the airflow on which the
wind turbines depend. |
|
| |
Is it possible that all the turbines of a given wind farm
might share a single "water tower" with a single pump and
a single hydroelectric generator? Is it possible that they
could all be mechanically connected to this single
structure without extravagant wastage of energy in
mechanical transmission, using yet more high-precision
components which, again, must be protected against the
salt water? |
|
| |
If not, then you might be better off just drawing
electrical current from the wind turbines, which would
then drive a pump at some quite separate hydroelectric
site. |
|
| |
[pertinax]; on the one hand, a pump is a turbine, so you
could just have the one & run it in the required direction.
On the other; yes, it would probably be more efficient to
have a "separate" hydro-battery system, driven
electrically by the wind-turbines. |
|
| |
This idea would work better upside-down, pumping air into big underwater diving-bell-like contraptions. |
|
| |
I'm listening: how do you then extract the energy from the
big bubble? |
|
| |
The only criticism is would it be easier to just take
that excess energy and pump the water into a lake
inland to store the water? |
|
| |
Just saying that the water storage tanks on the
windmills would be pricey. |
|
| |
Or you pump the water out of the diving bell and then its exactly like this idea but the opposite |
|
| |
//This idea would work better upside-down,
pumping air into big underwater diving-bell-like
contraptions.// |
|
| |
That's brilliant! Cheap and workable. |
|
| |
But instead of a diving bell, or external tanks, turn the
whole thing into a
cylinder under water to utilize that water
pressure as a storage device. Taking the base,
which is presumably hollow anyway, shaping it into
a cylinder open to the ocean at the base. When
you need to recover that stored energy, just let
the water pressure push that cylinder back up. |
|
| |
Thing is, you could dig a deep well and have that
cylinder go down hundreds of feet and have pipes
feeding the pressurized water to the base. That
pressure would increase the deeper the well. |
|
| |
I think the 2020 cheapology version is to do what is called pumped storage with a water reservoir that is as cheap to make as possible. It might be that is an excavation. Multistory tall straws under the wind turbines are less cheap, at least for now. I think the future will improve. |
|
| |
Better batteries would be better. |
|
| |
"Put on this snorkel and mask, we have to take a free dive to check the generator. Don't worry, it's just like escaping a sub." |
|
| |
//Better batteries would be better// I hope we can all agree about that statement. |
|
| |
If you mine thermal coal for a living, better batteries are most
alarming. Not that you'll get any sympathy from me in that case. |
|
| |
But even then, if they are better, that are by definition better. |
|
| |
You are not yet enlightened in the Way of Hegelian Dialectic,
Grasshopper. |
|
| |
I have never been to Hegelia. But the dialect can't be as difficult to pick up as those of Glasgow or Dundee. |
|
| |
"But even then, if they are better, that are by definition better." It was kind of nifty when I reread the phrase "making a set a member of itself is [outside ZFC]" **a very similar thing** I think at some kind of math |
|
| |
[pomloc] might, easily, be better at symbolic logic textbook reading [link], and could tell us the cool part, what happens next. |
|
| |
So, anyway, what does happen next? I looked it up, and as recently as 1983 people had new things to say about "better things are better" (a set being a member of itself), "The term non-wellfounded set refers to sets which contain themselves as members, and more generally which are part of an infinite sequence of sets each term of which is an element of the preceding set. So they exhibit object circularity in a blatant way." |
|
| |
Then, in a move that made me feel comfy, they used a language/meaning statement that turned what seemed to be two (or infinite) things into something conceptually ultra-handy and neat not even remotely an array, but that's how it feels. They made up the english word "comember" and cofunction, called the whole thing AFA, and now instead of watching a tennis game in our heads about a set being a member of itself, there's an (enjoyably micronstrual?) feeling like an arrray. We can just treat it as a thing with different properties called a coalgebra (co-algebra), and it has things like co-induction and co-recursion. |
|
| |
The suspense: If someone who read the textbook, and understood it were writing annotations, what would they say? Would they touch on batteries? They might even be able to explain what different states (or statements) of better are going on. I didn't pay close attention, but if AFA, where "better things are better" is a fine thing to say and not funny at all, there is still the possibility f such things as size. |
|
| |
If anyone here has the urge look at the link to AFA and see if you can write the dialog! |
|
| |
So if we/I knew what those things actually were and used them, then There might be talk of "during" or simultaneous betterness, or batteries that |
|
| |
and there is an entire little branch |
|
| |
Sets that are members of themselves, besides giving people the urge to refer to awesome but cliche things like highway-line cut or uncut mobius strips, might have something that comes next. Implications that could guide communication in English. |
|
| |
is read up on the implications and resultant effects of when they say a set is a member of itself. Learn some cool stuff that way. Another thing too is I could Pay a Mathematician. |
|
| |
(You read that right, I said "pay a mathematician") to tell me if the known world of physics contained sets that were members of themselves, if it was "unphysical", or if it happened constantly. |
|
| |