Who will win the race to the miraculous energy?
Some producers of renewable energies have taken up the challenge of BILL GATES, who stated that intends to finance an energy miracle (A reactor fueled by nuclear waste that meets the US energy needs for the next 800 years). They say that this energy does not serves because their energy is already miraculous, being renewable and having halved the costs. Even SPAWHE, that is not a producer and have not funds for research, has taken up the challenge, but says that the miracle did it nature by creating the air compressible and water incompressible that put together intelligently, can produce all the energy we want in fixed and mobile version with insignificant cost compared to current energy and also to those of the future. If this, until now, has not happened was for hydropower fault with the hydraulic jump, which put off the road designers, being the hydraulic jump a particular case where overlap the static and dynamic water pressure drop that passes through the turbine. But this case is no longer reproducible, having made wide use of the existing hydraulic jumps. Continue to produce hydroelectric energy with the hydraulic jump, it becomes more and more uneconomical and wrong of the environmental point of view. But SPAWHE examined the subject, only with reasoning, and today can say with certainty that there are many ways to produce hydroelectric energy without the hydraulic jump, recycling water, even raising the water, and even taking advantage of the artificial pressure of an autoclave tank. In the new hydrology, especially when it is necessary to recover and lifting water, we can control the flow of water with stepper motors mounted on the valves and inverters that regulate with precision the speed of the pumps. When the volumes of water are small and the pressures are hig, if place side by side two tanks, one of which pressurized with compressed air and one at atmospheric pressure and realize the hydraulic scheme shown in the figure, we can limit the oscillation of the water level in both tanks in a very narrow range, always recycling the same water, through the computerized control of the valve position and the speed of the motors. The dynamic energy of the water that passes through the turbine is produced by the compressed air cushion which can not leave the space assigned in the autoclave by level regulators, and therefore exerts a constant pressure on the water entering the turbine, that the discharge in the open tank, from which it is re-inserted, without solution of continuity, in the pressurized water recycling circuit of the autoclave, entering from the second suction mouth of the pump with double power. Since does not vary the volume of water inside the autoclave tank, we must not overcome the opposition of the air cushion but only the frictional resistance of the closed circuit, which are small in size compared to the static pressure exerted by the compressed air.
This circuit if uses a compressed air pressure of 3.5 bar and a flow rate of 35 L/s, produces about 9.0 Kw consuming about 0,07 Kw / h. With a pressure of 35 bar and a flow rate of 35 L/s would produce about 90 kW / h, consuming about 0.7 Kw / h. With a pressure of 35 bar and a flow rate of 350 L / sec, it would produce about 900 Kw / h consuming about 7.0 Kw / h. This energy consuming very little air and completely recycled water can be mounted even on sustainable means of transport of the future, saving the costs of distribution networks and railway rails. But they can also be used on other large ships and large aircraft. If today this energy, that is a hundred times cheaper than coal, it is not produced, it is only because those who have been wrong to not produce it, still have the power to pretend that it is not true. To Bill Gates, who is a very intelligent person, who has not responded to a previous open letter (www.spawhe.eu/open-letter-to-mr-bill-gates-on-energy-miracle), Spawhe says simply that we can not venture into new nuclear adventures, even if would pay all of his own pocket, after scientists have shown that they have neglected the fundamental principles of physics and hydraulics, which could produce energy at very low cost by at least one hundred years, to chase much more expensive fossil energies that have not been able to clean and nuclear energies, also more expensive, which produced only irreparable damage.
I think that if we exploit the energy of position of surface water, renewable energies become much cheaper than fossil fuels, both in terms of initial investment, both in terms of running costs. But it seems that this energy scares science, environmental authorities and those who have invested in the old and new energies. It is probably the simplest solution that nobody wants to experience not to admit colossal mistakes of the past and present. But how long can go on this Collective silence? They serve little money to show whether it is true or false, because it is not necessary to build a thermal or nuclear power plant, even dams and large reservoirs, but only put together pumps and turbines in the same facilities, in at least five different versions. I hope that at least Bill Gates, who has so much money, and seems genuinely interested in protecting the environment, can solve this dilemma that the experts, public and private, do not want to deal with. Probably they do not want to humiliate the inventor of these solutions too simplistic. If this is the problem, do not worry, I'm just a pensioner. I will be happy to be humiliated, as long as they enter into the details of the solutions and do not talk to case of perpetual motion and energy conservation. Better yet if they realize prototypes.
Io penso, che se si sfrutta l'energia di posizione delle acque superficiali, le energie rinnovabili diventano molto più economiche delle energie fossili, sia in termini di investimento iniziale, sia in termini di costi di gestione. Ma sembra che questa energia spaventi la scienza, le autorità dell'ambiente e coloro che hanno investito nelle vecchie e nuove energie. Probabilmente, è l'uovo di Colombo che nessuno vuole sperimentare per non ammette errori colossali, del passato e del presente. Ma per quanto tempo può andare avanti questo silenzio Collettivo? Servono pochi soldi per dimostrare se è vero o falso, perché non è necessario costruire una centrale termica o nucleare, nemmeno dighe e grandi bacini, ma soltanto mettere insieme pompe e turbine negli stessi impianti, in almeno, cinque versioni diverse. Spero che almeno Bill Gates, che ha così tanto denaro, e sembra sinceramente interessato alla tutela dell'ambiente, possa sciogliere questo dilemma che gli addetti ai lavori, pubblici e privati, non vogliono affrontare. Probabilmente, non vogliono umiliare l'inventore di queste soluzioni troppo semplicistiche. Se è questo il problema, non si preoccupino, sono solo un pensionato. Sarò felice di essere umiliato, purché si entri nei dettagli delle soluzioni e non si parli a caso di moto perpetuo e di conservazione dell'energia. Meglio ancora se si realizzano dei prototipi.
Dear Mr. Bill Gates, I read a few days ago your interview with James Bennett of November 2015 entitled "We need an energy miracle" (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need -an-energy-miracle / 407881 /) that I shared on my facebook page. I appreciate your good intentions, if I understand correctly, they provide a financial commitment of $ 2 billion that, for us, mere mortals, it is a number that we cannot even imagine. I think, like many others, that if also the other rich had your sensitivity, the world would be much better. I appreciate above all the fact that bluntly denounces the failure of energy environmental policies, public and private.
For myself, energy policy, should be based on synergies between natural resources and technologies with minimal processing cost, combining energy production to environmental protection. But this does not happen because the public experts do not reason globally and therefore not even coordinate private energy solutions. A classic example of the wrong plants are those that produce energy from organic sludge, which are not as efficient because before it destroys the energetic power of the sludge in sewers and then trying to produce energy in plants, which positioned away from the source of pollution waste energy, producing acidic waters and very little energy from septic sludge. The logical process would be the immediate separation of the sludge from the water in the same urban centers and separate processes: aerobic for water and anaerobic for the transport of the sludge to energy production. Another example of the wrong energy is hydroelectric power with the hydraulic jump, which involves the construction of large dams and large reservoirs in mountain valleys, to harness the energy of the water position, which in many cases produces disastrous side effects such as floods, not even solving the problems of the summer drought, because water is not recycled and stored for emergencies, but used one way. A correct water management should be made in the valleys, in parallel and not in series, to watercourses. Where the water, not only could produce hydroelectric power without the hydraulic jump and recycling the water. But also using water to cool the thermal plants, producing alkaline waters, bringing together the fumes with artificial rains in limestone greenhouses. But this presupposes the realization of complete cycles that although known, scientifically, no one has ever put together, because the insiders public and private jobs are specialized to do one thing only. They either produce energy, or purify water, or filter the air. In any case realizing incomplete cycles, which can no longer be completed once they are released by the plants. From this way of operating it is born pollution and global warming. I think that only by rationalizing purification systems and management of water we can get truly sustainable energy, otherwise it will continue forever to realize incomplete cycles and also public facilities, which should protect the environment, participating in the degradation. It is not enough to give incentives to new energies, discontinuous, with low yields, high environmental impacts. With the rationalization of which I speak, not wasting anything, not only does not produce pollution, but also a lot more energy than we can imagine. Not only biological, but also hydropower. Because if is true that the current hydropower, using high hydraulic jumps produces a lot of energy (about 17% of world energy) it is also true that require large works with high costs to produce it. The depreciation of public capital invested requires many years, and as mentioned above, the implants can also be counterproductive for collateral damage. But, now, the systems have been implemented, the world's hydraulic jumps are almost all exploited. However, the damage can be overcome, even realizing accumulation of water in the valley in parallel, not in series to water courses, which not only will free the ways of water escape to the sea, but it will produce energy with high returns, despite the recycling of water. In the new hydroelectric, offering myself, the energy is less flashy of almost banal hydraulic jump, therefore, we must exploit other water features that although known, were not used for energy purposes, as the compressibility and the intangibility , which together allow the recovery and recycling at low cost, obviously in systems designed differently. In fact, we can use generous hydraulic schemes from the point of view of energy during the descent of the water, concentrated in a small volume with a pump that breaks the state of surface water inertia, by pumping in the direction of gravitational force and transforming into energy, by turbine, the energy of the water surface position respect to the underlying water. This energy was discovered in 1640 by Evaristo Torricelli, but never used for energy purposes, without the hydraulic jump, because it is necessary to use the vertical intubation of the water and match as mentioned above, a pump and a hydraulic turbine. In addition, exploiting the simple residual kinetic energy is possible to insert the water flow in the same basin, for the simple fact that the static pressure cannot oppose. It cannot oppose because of the characteristics of compressibility and intangibility of water, which in traditional hydroelectric, are not highlighted. In fact, in the current hydroelectric, not only the water drops to fall, but at the outlet, meets the air that has a density almost one thousand times lower than water, or flows into a lower basin, with some meter of water column above the mouth.
It never is having realized the submerged hydroelectric is difficult to explain to ordinary people that for equal water speed and the weight of the water column on the turbine, the two types of hydroelectric plants produce the same amount of energy, even if the energy takes place by gravity and the submerged is conditioned by the rotation of the pump and the relative small energy consumption, compared to the energy produced. In fact, in the restricted environment of descent tube, if the masses are equal, descending in the direction of the gravitational force, increase in the same manner its own weight during the descent, regardless of the cause that produces the movement. What is strange is the fact that on this matter are silent even scientists who study the ocean currents, the professors and engineers, who design subsea pipelines of discharge and heating and cooling plants. In fact, if the static pressure is opposed to kinetic energy, we may not have the ocean currents, discharge of the water in underwater pipelines and even circulate the water with low prevalence of pumps, in heating or cooling pressurized systems by open or closed vessel. .
It obvious that if you neglect the simple physical principles to produce energy, you end up producing complex , polluting, dangerous and low efficiency energy. I think this is what happened, even though no one wants to admit it. I think that energy and purifying miracles nobody wants to find them to avoid admitting colossal, collective and banal design errors. However, for how long it can last this sort of global conspiracy of silence?
For myself the energy has to interact with the environment protecting it. It should not simply be neutral. The protective energy you can be produced in different modes:
My cleansing - biological energy solutions have simply been ignored and my international patents left to decay. While the hydroelectric energy branded by patent offices as contrary to the principles of conservation of energy and charged with achieving the impossible perpetual motion. Obviously, I was opposed to these decisions asserting that it is not I who do not respect the principles of conservation of energy but are the current hydraulic systems that waste. Whereas the undersigned agrees that, the perpetual motion is not feasible, but in the water can be realized with small power consumption, combining the characteristics of the water compressibility the combination of pumps and turbines. Above all, it is the lack the invention of dual supply pump on the suction side, which allows you to increase the gravitational and hydrostatic pressure to produce energy and bypass the same forces in the rise of the waters, which must not be wasted. Whereas in pressurized movable hydroelectric to the same system has been added the compressibility of gases. Compressed gas is equivalent to the energy of position, which it is much more economical and more powerful of the energy accumulated with electric batteries. However all this is written extensively on SPAWHE and above all on http://www.spawhe.eu/relativty-and-technology-in-the-new-hydroelectric-energy/. Advice to those who have already downloaded the PDF file available in Italian and English to download it again, having provided other technical questions.
Egr. Mr. Gates, this letter is composed of five pages, but the list of those who have not responded to these proposals at least fill dozens of pages. Therefore I conclude that there are only two believe energy miraculous. Others believe for a fee and I can not pay anyone. The question is whether we believe in the same kind of miracle. From one of your latest interview 29/02/2016 by David Biello (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-s-richest-man-picks-energy-miracles/?wt.mc=SA_Facebook-Share), I shared on my facebook page, it seems that although we are both Catholics, we do not have the same conception of a miracle, if you think the production of energy with kites to collect energy from the high-altitude winds, or a nuclear reactor that will not melt down (Ground Power). With all due respect to your conception of a miracle, I still believe also in my system, although those that you pay, they will try to convince you otherwise. I believe in my solutions because I think that if we are moving toward global warming is because science to invent new things has neglected the basic physical principles and ended up producing complex energy, polluting, dangerous and low efficiency. I also think that in order not to admit colossal, collective and banal design errors, they continue to look for new energy, that would have no reason to be looking for if we truly sustainable path all the roads. I believe that sustainable ways we have not even started. In fact, just flip the pumps, pumping water in the direction of the force of gravity to produce all the energy we need, but if we want to, at the same time, also raise the water to distribute or defend ourselves from the shallow water, we have to do to circumvent the force of gravity by changing the pumps also inside, turning them into mixing of flows with different pressures and insert two ducted suction intakes. If the global ruling class did not do these simple things, he has no right to demand sacrifices from taxpayers to fund energy with low returns just because they are less polluting than fossil, for the simple fact that even fossil energy would be more expensive than new hydropower.
Egr. Mr. Gates I think that if you have decided to spend your money to stop global warming, help the poor to survive, create jobs, waiting for your employees develop your new energies, not to waste any time, you may begin to fund these projects. Indeed, you may consider them as your, as a man or entrepreneur. I employed a transversely life, as a technician poorly paid, just to learn how to design them. I did this to see them trashed by people knowing develop science and technology; do not know how to design the systems globally, because they cannot create synergies between those sciences and technologies. Currently, in the entire universe, there is no complete system from an environmental point of view. No matter whether industrial, energy or depurative. A plant is complete only if closes all cycles, main and collateral. When cannot do it alone, it is to be connected to structural works that connect it to other systems, through the aerobic, anaerobic, pressure or gravity. This is not utopia but work organization, which should also know the designers of the power equipment, purifying, not only designers of manufacturing production, which, however, only apply to increase productivity, not to protect the environment. In the absence of public binding regulations would be crazy to increase the production costs. It is possible that in 2016, there is in the world no planned neighborhood with water and air self purifying systems, while no one takes out a dollar to verify if the limestone greenhouses or overlapping biological ponds are efficient, that without energy costs could be purified and desalinate million cubic meters of water, of course combined with hydroelectric systems with water recycling. All this could be done without building, reservoirs and dams, thermal power plants, or nuclear power.
There are no magic solutions, but rational and irrational solutions, complete and incomplete. No energy solution, isolated, can be defined as a rational, comprehensive, just think of the transport and accumulation of energy, that are not need in the systems that I propose.
Dear Mr. Gates, I think you have already entered, with merit, in human history, and I think that you can enter it even more if, as an outsider, ports in the world environment and energy, not mine or your solutions, but above all, the right energy in the right place, to rationalize, even simultaneously purifying systems. The SPAWHE system is an example of rationalization that should have spread to the United Nations, together with I.P.C.C. publications, but not even Mr. Al Gore, who is the flag bearer of these messages, knows SPAWHE. It is not true that the blame for the failure to advance the art in the field of environment and energy is due to the absence of a world government. It is precisely due to the absence state of the art. In fact, as in the construction of the car, were internationalized safety devices such as airbags, ABS, catalytic converters, CO2 emissions limits, just as it could be done in the civil and industrial buildings, to delete the smokestacks, in the way of purifying the water and urban air. Similarly if it were established that hydropower with water recycling is dozens of times cheaper than coal, or at least equal to coal, could in the interest of all, replace the thermoelectric power, already since many years. For the transitive property, also other energies would not be competitive and would have no reason to get paid incentives by taxpayers. Moreover, in assessing the effectiveness and cost of energy is also expected interactive effect with the environment, which is another point in favor of this energy, which no one takes into account, preventing even an experimentation by four money that only a retired isolated from the global conspiracy of silence of the experts, cannot afford.
I am sure that if you finance some projects the powerful who are now silent, they will want to help you. It known that all want help the winners. However, these things certainly you know more than I do. Waiting for your kind reply, hoping to reach you above all, by word of mouth. Thanking those who will inform you of the existence of these projects, I send you
Luigi Antonio Pezone
Ci potete contattare al numero - contact us at the following telephone number:
39 0823 796712
39 340 5000 280
Potete usare il nostro modulo online. You can
use our online form
Per leggere o scaricare gli articoli, usare l'indice posto sopra l'immagine di apertura. Evidenziare il titolo e leggere l'articolo che appare sotto l'immagine al posto della Home Page.
To read or download the articles, use the index above the opening image. Highlight the title and read the article that appears below the image instead of the Home Page.
Luigi antonio Pezone