Velocity more efficient than volume?

  • Thread starter Thread starter drewman13
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Velocity Volume
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the efficiency of using water velocity versus volume for energy generation, highlighting that velocity squared significantly impacts energy output. Two equations demonstrate that achieving higher energy output through increased velocity requires less volume compared to volume-based methods. However, practical challenges arise, such as the need for sufficient water height to generate pressure, which complicates the feasibility of relying solely on velocity. The conversation also references the hydroelectric system on the Umpqua River, illustrating how local geography influences energy generation methods. Ultimately, while mathematically velocity appears advantageous, practical limitations must be considered.
drewman13
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Here are two equations showing a nearly equivelant energy output for a given volume and velocity of water. Using the formula:

EKin = M/2 x Vsquared

250/2 x 15.34m/s x 15.34m/s = 29,414 KW (requires 5 times more volume)

50/2 x 35m/s x 35m/s = 30,625 KW (requires only 2.3x more velocity)

Since the velocity is squared, isn't it better to look to use velocity over volume? IF velocity can be acheived through another means other than water pressure via water depth, wouldn't that be the most efficient way to go?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mathematically, yes, it is.

Practically?
v \propto \sqrt{h}
where h is the height of the water and pressure
p \propto \rho g h
This depends on desinty of water and height. If you want to double velocity, you'll 4x the height, which 4x the pressure...It'd be a challenge to find material that can withstand that...
 
drewman13 said:
Here are two equations showing a nearly equivelant energy output for a given volume and velocity of water. Using the formula:

EKin = M/2 x Vsquared

250/2 x 15.34m/s x 15.34m/s = 29,414 KW (requires 5 times more volume)

50/2 x 35m/s x 35m/s = 30,625 KW (requires only 2.3x more velocity)

Since the velocity is squared, isn't it better to look to use velocity over volume? IF velocity can be acheived through another means other than water pressure via water depth, wouldn't that be the most efficient way to go?

Water depth? You will still have to get the water to a sufficent height above the outlet in order to get the pressure. You will also have to refill this depth of water in order to maintain pressure. That means using energy to get all this water from the working level to the top.

Are you thinking that you can just put a hose deep in the ocean and water will flow up to land with the pressure from the depth? I hope not
:frown:
 
Why do you suppose they build dams as high as they can? The hydro electric system on the Umpqua river in Southern Oregon, does not have many high dams. They use a system of flumes to carry the water to top of a several hundred ft high cliff, then using huge pipes (8' to10' in diameter) drop the water at a high velocity into the generators and back into the river bed. This is a convenience of our local geography, and a relatively small river that drops rapidly from 5000' to near sea level in less then 50 mi.

http://www.outstandingrivers.org/northumpqua.asp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top