Skip navigation
16comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Robert Dedomenico

Jul 12, 2013
05:04

Member


1 |
Share via:
Perhaps you should think this one through a bit more... there might be a feasibility problem here.

Patrick Mcnulty

Jul 12, 2013
06:44

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
"Feasibility problem" is a very vague term. Could you elaborate more?

Robert Dedomenico

Jul 13, 2013
12:51

Member


3 |
Share via:
It means: it won't work.

Patrick Mcnulty

Jul 13, 2013
01:53

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Tell that to Dr. Hugh Willoughby at FIU.... http://www.ihrc.fiu.edu/people/hugh-willoughby/

Robert Dedomenico

Jul 13, 2013
11:00

Member


5 |
Share via:
There's a saying... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Your proposal contains several tall claims... but no proof at all. Perhaps you can get your professor to sign up and give you a supporting vote. More importantly, see if you can get him to put anything at all into a comment that offers any evidence at all that this scheme has any chance of working. This is just some candid and honest feedback, that's all.

Patrick Mcnulty

Jul 13, 2013
12:49

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
No need to worry computers will prove my extraordinary claims once they are computer modeled... How do I know that? Because I already have a working model...

Patrick Mcnulty

Jul 14, 2013
02:20

Member


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Going out of town to a funeral...Be back next week...

2013electricpowerjudges 2013electricpowerjudges

Aug 7, 2013
10:01

Judge


8 |
Share via:
Interesting concept, but the proposal needs to provide more detail to enable evaluation of its potential impact and feasibility. For example, have there been small scale tests of the concept? If so, what were the results? How much power was generated? What was the cost of the equipment? Would these same cost/power ratios hold if the project were scaled up? Some of this material may have been included in the accompanying materials, but the Judges can only assess what is included within the proposal itself, in order to provide a level playing field to all entrants. In addition, it would have been good to note other efforts to harness ocean currents for power, for example http://www.gulfstreamturbine.com/ and http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16713781, and indicate how the proposal's approach is similar or different. The proposal speaks of harnessing the Gulf Stream but also describes installations in the Pacific. The Gulf Stream is only in the Atlantic Ocean. The Kuroshio Current flows in the Pacific. Also, there is nothing on possible limitations/challenges associated with implementation, and a discussion of those would be useful.

Patrick Mcnulty

Aug 7, 2013
02:31

Member


9 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I gave a lot of information as to what I know the impact would be if the Co2 were reduced in the manner of which I had conveyed. Such as solving most of the problems associated burning fossil fuel GHG'S...Sea surface temperatures can be regulated at the same time power is generated to any temperature between 70 and 90 degrees fahrenheit in order to restore the summertime Northern Arctic Ice extent and mass.This idea will also weaken land falling hurricanes prior to their arrival to the shoreline, reduce severe weather,reduce tornadoes,reduce drought,reduce flooding, prevent ocean floor methane ice melting, prevent melting of permafrost,prevent methane escape from permafrost melt,increase albedo,reduce arctic amplification, prevent Co2 escape from permafrost melt,prevent coral bleaching,prevent hypoxic oceans,prevent red tide,restore ocean PH,prevent extinction of many land and oceanic species and bring atmospheric Co2 values down to pre- industrial revolution values of 300 ppm, etc,etc..Depending on how much cooling forcing and electrical power generation we create with them will determine how fast we can restore our climate. As the now cooler sea surface temperature in the Gulfstream that have exited the tunnels at the surface migrates Northward at about 5 to 6 miles per hour into the Northern Atlantic the air sea interaction with the cooler sea surface temperature cools the atmospheric air temperatures above the water. This now cooler air gets mixed in with the polar vortex which will help cool the North Arctic thus restoring ice extent and mass during the summer melt off which is now at very low levels... Hurricanes upwell cool water also and so you can see how this idea will work... This technology can also be used and combined with OTEC.. On a different note as far as generating power from the Gulf stream there are plenty of other examples that of which I thought the judges already knew of including OTEC and FAU's current project of tapping the kinetic energy of the Gulf Stream: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/university-moves-toward-powering-florida-with-the-gulf-stream/6577 ... My idea expands on both of those technologies and is better because we can use the thermal difference between upper and lower boundaries of the Gulf Stream to boil ammonia or sea water as well as the kinetic energy in the Gulf Stream COMBINED... There are two types of OTEC cycles OPEN or CLOSED loops..http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Otec_Open_Diagram_in_English.JPG/350px-Otec_Open_Diagram_in_English.JPG , http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Otec_Closed_Diagram_in_English.JPG/350px-Otec_Closed_Diagram_in_English.JPG ... FAU is also trying to use Kinetic Energy in the Gulfstream but again my idea is more effective... Here is how with some bulleted items.. . They combine OTEC with the technology . They filter the sea life out of the water prior to it's use on the turbine with traveling screens and return any sea life back to the ocean via the wash header similar to what current power plants already do today... . There is a venturi section where the turbine is placed in order to speed the flow across the turbine to tap more energy from the faster moving water... . SST's can be regulated anywhere between 70 and 90 degrees F in order to regulate climate and do what was mentioned above... If you read the proposal I made the distinction between the different currents one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific.... I also mentioned the Yucatan Current entering the Gulf Of Mexico... "Also, there is nothing on possible limitations/challenges associated with implementation, and a discussion of those would be useful." Either we do this or we lose the summertime Arctic Ice.. We have no other choice do I make my self clear? Sincerely, Patrick McNulty

Patrick Mcnulty

Aug 9, 2013
05:30

Member


10 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
You get it now?

Laur Hesse Fisher

Aug 9, 2013
05:57

Staff


11 |
Share via:
Hi Patrick, Thanks for your comments. I'm replying here as it is the best place to post proposal-related comments, as all those who are interested in your proposal, such as Judges and CoLab members, will be visiting this page to learn the details of and discuss your proposal. They may not see what is posted on Facebook or in the Community Forum. After posting your comments, you wrote on our Facebook wall: "Now are the judges ready to reconsider my idea? Because next year will be to late for the Summer time Arctic Ice extent/mass...." Due to the limitations expressed by the Judges above, they were unable to move your proposal forward to the Finalist round. As the Judges mentioned in their email, all Judges decisions are final and cannot be reconsidered at this point. Your passion and commitment to your idea are obvious, and given our contest processes and timelines, perhaps the Climate CoLab is not the best forum for your proposal in particular to be realized. If you would like to continue participating through the Climate CoLab — which we hope you do -- feel free to use this comment page to keep amending your proposal, posting references, and requesting feedback/contributions from the CoLab community. We encourage you to incorporate the Judges' comments into future proposal iterations, and submit them for next year. I hope you found value out of participating in the Climate CoLab in the 2012/2013 round of contests, and out of the feedback from the team of experts who reviewed your proposal. Best, Laur Fisher MIT Climate CoLab staff

Patrick Mcnulty

Aug 9, 2013
10:03

Member


12 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Sorry Laur next year is to late for the restoration of summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass which my idea will restore,it will be gone in the 5 to 10 year time frame I laid out for my idea to work in. It was imperative the idea go through this year in order to have a chance to save it...I can not help it if the judges did not understand my idea as other scientists have such as Dr. Hugh Willoughby at FIU...He is the one who told me my idea works to weaken hurricanes...Now if your committee does not think that is important then so be it. Just know your contest did not solve the dire situation of the summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass situation we are faced with today... If you do not understand the concept or how they work I'll be glad to tutor you on how and why they work and how we can use them to our advantage...So now is not the time to talk now is the time to listen so ask away.... Not being crass here just being honest..They should have been built yesterday to save the ice so you can see why the sense of urgency today...

Patrick Mcnulty

Aug 10, 2013
12:34

Member


13 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
"Due to the limitations expressed by the Judges above, they were unable to move your proposal forward to the Finalist round. As the Judges mentioned in their email, all Judges decisions are final and cannot be reconsidered at this point." I hope you don't allow the Arctic Ice to melt in lieu of a silly rule that can be changed by the judges.... I hope you are smarter than that....

Laur Hesse Fisher

Aug 20, 2013
12:00

Staff


14 |
Share via:
Hi Patrick, On your Facebook post you wrote: "Let me make this clear to you Laur until I get satisfaction from one of your experts as to why my idea does not work with a valid reason based on physics I will not leave your social network site... I joined MIT's competition to solve the world problem that fossil fuels bring us today in good faith..My solution solves all 18 proposal categories.... If you can not tell me why my idea will not do that then I am the winner hands down.... So I challenge your experts to give me a valid reason as to why my idea does not work..." Based on the Judges comments, they do not say that it does not work, but that you have not given them the information necessary to demonstrate that it will work. In your follow up comments, you address some of their questions, but not all of them. For example, you mention other projects that are similar to your proposal, but only briefly; they are looking for more specific details in this regard. I recommend re-writing your proposal, and focus on presenting it in a clear and concise way, including detailed scientific evidence and support for your claims. How does the technology work? What are similar projects, how they have succeeded and how they have failed, and how does your project address their failures? (I don’t understand what this comment means and would want more technical detail: “My idea expands on both of those technologies and is better because we can use the thermal difference between upper and lower boundaries of the Gulf Stream to boil ammonia or sea water as well as the kinetic energy in the Gulf Stream COMBINED".) How much energy does this technology provide? How will sea temperatures be regulated? If you don't have this information, that's OK -- then tell us what data you don't have and what is needed in order to get it. In sum: tell me what I would need to know to believe you. Simply saying, "this will work" is not sufficient. You may not be familiar with how people in the field like to see information presented, and I recommend getting some support here. You mentioned you have a professor who supports your idea; have him read your proposal and provide feedback. He understands how scientists and academics like to have information laid out and may be able to help you present it better. Having other colleagues read it and help you frame your idea may also be a good idea. Laur

Patrick Mcnulty

Aug 20, 2013
02:54

Member


15 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Laur, "Based on the Judges comments, they do not say that it does not work, but that you have not given them the information necessary to demonstrate that it will work." That is correct based on the judges comments they do not say that it does not work.... Based on my comments I say it does work... How do I know that? Because I have a working scale model that proves F1 > F2 and have video of it... The computer will give them all the information they need to demonstrate along with a working scale model of my idea. The computer and a model can demonstrate it working and how it's built much better than I can demonstrate it even though I do have a working model that shows how the water is upwelled to the surface.... The simplified mathematical formula that makes the technology work is Force1 is greater than Force2 or F1 > F2.... Pascal worked on that many moon ago... I showed you similar project that FAU is working on and some different types of OTEC heat exchange. They are in operation in Hawaii http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/OTEC_in_Hawaii.jpg/795px-OTEC_in_Hawaii.jpg..http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/university-moves-toward-powering-florida-with-the-gulf-stream/6577 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Otec_Open_Diagram_in_English.JPG/350px-Otec_Open_Diagram_in_English.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Otec_Closed_Diagram_in_English.JPG/350px-Otec_Closed_Diagram_in_English.JPG My idea combined with OTEC makes it more efficient.... "(I don’t understand what this comment means and would want more technical detail: “My idea expands on both of those technologies and is better because we can use the thermal difference between upper and lower boundaries of the Gulf Stream to boil ammonia or sea water as well as the kinetic energy in the Gulf Stream COMBINED".)" If you don't understand this then get someone here that does... How much does this energy provide? The computer will tell us that information once modeled.... It is based on size... They can be many different sizes but once they are added together they could produce 13 trillion joules of energy every 7 seconds if needed.... I told you in the proposal "How will sea temperatures be regulated? If you don't have this information, that's OK -- then tell us what data you don't have and what is needed in order to get it. In sum: tell me what I would need to know to believe you. Simply saying, "this will work" is not sufficient." If you read the proposal I explained Sea surface temperatures can be regulated at the same time power is generated to any temperature between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit in order to restore the summertime Northern Arctic Ice extent and mass. So if you looked at the diagram you would Notice Tic-026 is a regulator and based on what set point you input into it would regulate the SST at the discharge anywhere between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s54/hurricanedude/001.jpg If you do not understand basic flow control or temperature control systems or diagrams then get someone who does on it.... "Simply saying, "this will work" is not sufficient." That is why it needs computer modeling to show you it works... No different than computer modeling the space shuttle... BTW Shuffling me to this secret location is not going to work for you... I will continue to post on your social Facebook network for the world to see... My idea is no secret... ..

Patrick Mcnulty

Aug 20, 2013
04:50

Member


16 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
My idea will only be discussed by me on your Facebook page in the future if you want to contact me further contact me there.... Otherwise Bye...