Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum free energy in the gulf of mexico

Huh? Why?

Of course if it's a big enough building that it needs a vast network of underground pipes with installation costs that have a payback period longer than the building's life, then no, don't bother with a closed loop pipe.

It may also use _less_ electricity to pump up from an open pipe and dump the hot water back in somewhere else. Just because of the resistance of the water against that huge length of pipe wall you would have to have otherwise.

Sure, in a small system like yours a closed loop pipe is probably best. But it isn't necessarily always best for everyone.

great idea.

it might cost more initialy , but the savings over the life of the building or complex would pay for the building or complex.

I say this strictly because of the cost of electricity.

say your paying out 10,000 a month for electricity , and that would be a relatively small building compared to the bill at the
empire state building for instance.

you can reduce that 10,000 to apx 3,000 each month.
over a 30 year period you save
7,000 x 12 x 30 = 2.52 million dollars.

I hardly think that the pipes and the geo installation would
cost any where near that amount , unless your being gouged by
companies that gouge , perhaps with kickbacks involved.

Yea the pipe installation cost might be easier to overcome. But I think if your building was large enough, you'd reach a critical point where it uses less electricity to have two seperate wells than a long closed loop of pipe.

Why? because the longer the pipe, the more resistance, and the more power needed to pump water through it.

when a engineer designs a pipe system , he takes into account the pipe resistance.

and increases pipe size as required.

thereby reducing the pipe resistance from
friction,turbulance,etc.

this is why engineers are used in pipe design and pipe system design.

the only thing that can possibly reduce flow in a circulation
system other than obstructions , viscosity and fluid temperature is pipe resistance.

by increasing pipe size the resistance is greatly lowered.

the reason there is pipe resistance is the tendancy of fluid to cling to the walls of the pipe , this is called surface tension.

and this surface tension causes turbulance to build inside the flow area.

and this turbulance due to surface tension will slow the fluid that passes through the pipe , but if a larger pipe is used then there is a much larger area inside the pipe that is not affected by the turbulance due to the surface tension.

by increasing pipe size , you can effectively lower the pump size , or you can add more pipe lenght to the system.

because pumps utilize pressure to push fluid through pipes.

and by increasing the pipe size you reduce the resistance to flow inside the pipes.

in other words you reduce the resistance downstream of the pump.

it is clear that you dont have a working comprehension of pipe systems.

Yea sure, but it also lowers the rate of heat absorption/dumping per volume flow rate. That means you have to pump more water to get the same amount of cooling, and overcome a higher back-force from the bouyant hot water you're pushing in.

Maybe the reduced resistance compensates for that at any scale, but you can't be sure without actually calculating or testing it.


I have to nit pick again, but the fluid clinging to the walls on its own is bad enough, even without turbulence. Many industrial pipe systems are designed to have laminar flow just so they can save power, but they still suffer the losses you mentioned.

its a sealed pipe system , so higher pressure in the system
due to temperature changes that would affect the pumps pumping ability is null , and the hotter water will flow much easier than the colder water due viscosity changes that occur with water temperature changes.

so its a trade off , pretty much.

I totally agree that testing is necessary to find optimum
system design , as system design will vary greatly between designers.

unless norms are established throughout the industry.



I agree these will never go away.
1) temperature changes
2) viscosity changes
3) pipe resistance

and power requirements are mandated by these.

the most you can do is assist the flow by increasing fluid temperature or increasing pump pressure given that you are using water only.

but most have begun to use antifreeze as it has a low viscosity rating and a high heat rating , allowing the fluid to flow smoother through the pipe system.

and removing the need to drain the system in colder months.

note: I dont use antifreeze, I only use water.

I suppose I could get better results if I used the biodegradeable antifreeze available on the market.

I just dont like the idea of putting my well water in any jeopardy.

besides its not just my well water.

"Sorry but the internet isn't more reliable than books. Still doesn't count."

I don't think so, internet and books are both reliable because they are both the source of information so they are counted.