Pumping pressurized fluids to high altitude for the space tower and for fighting forest fires.

Copyright 2018 Robert Clark

(patents pending)

  Attached below were some discussions I had on news forums about producing a self-standing tower that can reach to space. It is known current materials do not have sufficient strength-to-weight to accomplish this. So the idea would be to do it dynamically by pressurized fluids pumped upwards. In the ensuing discussion it occurred to me we could also use it to fight forest fires, a currently serious problem here in the U.S. 

(I.) Calculations suggest we currently have pumps at sufficient power to carry water long distances through piping supported by pressurized water or air. The formula for the power required of a pump to carry a liquid vertically is proportional to its density, flow rate, and altitude, or head, as indicated here:

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pumps-power-d_505.html

 For water, 10 meters, 33 feet, of altitude corresponds to one additional bar of pressure, or 14.7 psi. So the formula for the power of a pump can also be written in terms of pressure.

 From proportionality, for a pump of a certain rated power, we can trade flow rate for  altitude, and vice versa. That is, in order to increase the altitude the water is pumped to by a factor of 10 with the same pumping power, we can decrease the flow rate by a factor of 10.

 Now consider the pumping power of the fireboat the Warner Lawrence:

 It can throw as much as 38,000 gallons per minute 400 feet upwards in the air, using its twin 1,575 horsepower motors and 10 water turrets. Then it could send 3,800 gallons per minute 4,000 feet in the air. 

 Then the idea would be to transport these type of pumping motors, if the ship itself is too difficult to transport, to a lake nearby to a wildfire or even the ocean, which can be several miles away from the fire.

 These motors would suffice to transport 3,800 GPM to 4,000 foot altitude. The idea would be to then turn the pipes horizontally and angled downward to allow the water to flow horizontally and down to reach the wildfire.

 The question would then be how is the pipe supported vertically and horizontally? The plan behind this is illustrated by the diagram in post #2 below. Exhaust ports at periodic intervals would direct a (small) proportion of the high pressure water downwards to create an upwards force.

 How much force? For the vertical portion, the water supports itself by the water pressure. But how about the water pipe? From the 400 foot head of the pumps, this corresponds to about 12 bar pressure above ambient.

 Now the thrust produced would be analogous to that of a water rocket: 

 That is, twice the product of the water pressure above ambient times the cross-sectional area. From the appearance of the size of the water turrets, I'll take their diameter as 8", among the largest sizes for hoses used by firefighters.. 

 Each of the 10 turrets at 8" diameter and 12 bar pressure will be converted to an 8" hose at 120 bar pressure. This is 120*100,000 Pascals = 12,000,000 Pa. The diameter of 8", is 0.20 m. Then the total thrust possible would be 2*(12,000,000 Pa)*(π*0.10^2) = 750,000 N, or 76,000 kilogram-force.

 It turns out this is the maximum that could be lifted by using the periodically placed exhaust ports along the length of the pipe. The problem is that the horizontal section would be too heavy to be supported by this thrust because for this part you would have to support both the pipe and the water, at least for this pipe size.

 You could further trade water flow rate for pressure thereby giving greater pressure and increasing thrust and at the same time reducing the water mass that needed to be supported but rather than doing that I'll work with the possibility suggested in post #5 below of sending the water in a parabolic arc.

 Note this is the path the water would take anyway when sent at the appropriate angle so in this case we should not need to support the water mass.

 For the pipe mass, let's estimate it first for aluminum. The ratio of the wall thickness of a cylindrical pressure vessel to its radius is in the same proportion as the contained pressure to the vessel material's tensile strength: 
 ______________________________________________________________

Stress in thin-walled pressure vessels

Stress in a shallow-walled pressure vessel in the shape of a sphere is

${\displaystyle \sigma _{\theta }=\sigma _{\rm {long}}={\frac {pr}{2t}}}$,

where ${\displaystyle \sigma _{\theta }}$ is hoop stress, or stress in the circumferential direction, ${\displaystyle \sigma _{long}}$ is stress in the longitudinal direction, p is internal gauge pressure, r is the inner radius of the sphere, and t is thickness of the sphere wall. A vessel can be considered "shallow-walled" if the diameter is at least 10 times (sometimes cited as 20 times) greater than the wall depth.^[14]

Stress in the cylinder body of a pressure vessel.

Stress in a shallow-walled pressure vessel in the shape of a cylinder is

${\displaystyle \sigma _{\theta }={\frac {pr}{t}}}$,

${\displaystyle \sigma _{\rm {long}}={\frac {pr}{2t}}}$,

where:

• ${\displaystyle \sigma _{\theta }}$ is hoop stress, or stress in the circumferential direction
• ${\displaystyle \sigma _{long}}$ is stress in the longitudinal direction
• p is internal gauge pressure
• r is the inner radius of the cylinder
• t is thickness of the cylinder wall.

       ____________________________________________________________

 The tensile strength of standard aluminum is 45,000 psi. The pressure of water at 120 bar would be 1,800 psi, which corresponds to a ratio of 25 to 1. Then the ratio of the wall thickness to the pipe radius would also be 25 to 1, giving a thickness of 0.1 m/25 = 0.004 m.

 Say the length of the pipe were 10 km, 10,000 m. Then the volume of the pipe wall would be π*0.20*0.004*10,000 = 25 m^3. At an aluminum density of 2,700 kg/m^3 this would weigh, 68,000 kg. This is uncomfortably close to the 76,000 kilo-force that could be supplied by the water flow. Then all but about a tenth of the water would be shooting out of the exhaust ports to support the pipe mass rather than being applied to fight the fire.

 The situation is made worse when you take into account the frictional losses, especially over long distances.

 So instead of standard aluminum we'll use other materials that have higher strength-to-weight ratio than standard aluminum. For instance, carbon fiber composites can cut the weight in half for pressure vessels. This would give the pipe a weight in the range of 34,000 kg, and about half the water would be available to fight the fire. 

 This would mean in the range of 1,900 GPM could be applied to the fire. Note that a common 5" diameter fire hose might only supply 500 GPM so this would be like four 5" size fire hoses being applied simultaneously and continuously to the fire.

 The weight for the pipe might be actually smaller by an additional factor of 2. The reason is as the water gets higher the pressure reduces so the required thickness of the pipe can also be reduced. If the pipe were straight it would be exactly half, but in curved parabolic shape the degree of reduction would need to be calculated.

 Also, as noted in post #5 below it may be the weight of the pipe will be supported by the flow of the water anyway and we might only need the exhaust ports for stability. This happens for example with those "air dancers":

 We still need to calculate the frictional losses however. For each of the ten 8" pipes the initial inflow would 1/10th of the total 3,800 GPM, or 380 GPM. 

 This page gives a frictional loss calculator:

Hazen-Williams Equation - calculating Head Loss in Water Pipes.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hazen-williams-water-d_797.html 

 For an 8" pipe, of 10,000 m, 32,500 ft, length, and 380 GPM flow rate, the loss by this calculator is only 38 psi out of the 1,800 psi.

 The pumps for the Warner Lawrence were only used as an example of what could be done. It could also be done by other large size pumps, such as this:

https://www.rainforrent.com/HighFlowPumps-DV600c.aspx 

 This can pump 28,000 GPM with a head of 96 feet. It is meant to be portable despite its 27,000 pound weight.

 I have said that water flow rate can be traded for altitude for a given pump power. But I didn't actually say how to do that. Certainly you can make the pump to begin with that can reach such high altitudes and also have high flow rates as needed in this application of fighting wildfires. But pumps don't commonly come with this kind of combination of ratings. 

 For water pumps with pressure ratings in the thousands of psi these are usually just used for pressure washers or for waterjet cutting systems. In such cases the water flow rate is small. 

 But to use this for fighting the current wildfires, rather than waiting for pumps of this special type to be designed, developed, tested and manufactured, which might take years, we need another method that can be implemented quickly.

 There is a rather well known method for converting water flow rate for altitude: the ram pump, or hydraulic ram. This is a rather simple type of pump that does not even need a motor. It works by using water flowing downhill to provide the energy to drive a smaller amount of water uphill to an even greater height than the initial water source, i.e., it trades water flow rate for altitude:

Hydraulic Ram.
"A hydraulic ram, or hydram, is a cyclic water pump powered by hydropower. It takes in water at one "hydraulic head" (pressure) and flow rate, and outputs water at a higher hydraulic head and lower flow rate. The device uses the water hammer effect to develop pressure that allows a portion of the input water that powers the pump to be lifted to a point higher than where the water originally started. The hydraulic ram is sometimes used in remote areas, where there is both a source of low-head hydropower and a need for pumping water to a destination higher in elevation than the source. In this situation, the ram is often useful, since it requires no outside source of power other than the kinetic energy of flowing water."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram

 Ram pumps are of such simple construction that they are often made by amateurs either for their water pump needs or simply for experiment. See for example here:

How to build a RAM PUMP.

 They can also be rather easily made of large size:

Largest Ram Pump in the World.

 There is at least one other company investigating pumping water up to high altitudes to fight fires, though in this case it's only going up vertically and only to 900 feet. The water hose in this case is only being supported by a drone: 

  As mentioned there these methods would allow fighting fires in high rises at heights above which normal fire trucks can reach with their hoses. They would allow the hoses to even be sent inside the buildings at high floors to direct the water to the specific locations inside the buildings of the fire. They also could be use for rescue for heights beyond which firetruck ladders can reach. They could have prevented tragedies such as the Grenell Tower fire in London.

 Another application would be drought relief when a fresh water source is miles away, and also for natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes when normal water service is interrupted.

 And it's not just areas of unexpected drought or natural disasters. Many areas in the developing nations suffer from fresh water scarcity. In these areas a significant part of the day is devoted simply to walking miles to reach a source of fresh water and carrying it back, just as a way of life. The people of these communities could accomplish much more without having to spend hours just transporting water.

 Note for this application, unlike the fire fighting application, most of the energy for transporting it could be recovered. For you could attach turbines at the bottom of the pipe to gain energy from the falling water. Some of the energy would be lost, due to frictional losses. But considering that much of the energy could be recovered, it's likely the water transport could be powered by solar power alone. 

(II.) The original impetus of this work was to produce a self-standing tower to reach the altitude of space, 100 km or above. The payload that could be launched would be increased significantly in that case. However, the pressures required for a single pump to accomplish this would for a large amount of water flow would be impractical. 

 The suggestion instead was to do the pumping in stages, as illustrated in post #2. You would need lightweight pumps that would be supported by the pressurized flow exiting the exhaust ports.

  I'll discuss a small pump to serve as a proof-of-principle to reach, say, 10 km. A low cost example of the individual pumps that might work is the battery operated Worx 325 psi Hydroshot, at 0.5 GPM, 0.5 in hose diameter, running at 20 volts, 2 amps.

 At the 325 psi = 2,210,000 Pa pressure and a 0.5 in diameter hose, this could generate a thrust of 2*(2,210,000 Pa)*π*(0.25/39.37 m)^2 = 560 N, 57 kilogram-force. The pump only weighs 3.7 pounds, 1.7 kg. 

 As before, we'll suppose the water itself is self-supported by the pressurized, directed upwards, water stream so we need to determine the weight of the pipe. Again using aluminum as a baseline, its 45,000 psi tensile strength is about 140 times the 325 psi internal pressure of the pipe. So the thickness of the pipe wall would be the size of the pipe radius 0.25 divided by 140: 0.25/140 = 0.001785 in. And the wall volume of a 10 km = 10,000 m pipe, with the diameter and thickness converted to meters, would be 

π*(0.5/39.37)*(0.001785/39.37)*10,000 m = 0.018 m^3. At a 2,700 kg/m^3 density of aluminum this would weigh 49 kg. Likely, we'll want to reduce the weight by half by using carbon fiber composite instead, so 25 kg.

 How many of the pumps would we need? The 22 bar pressure of the pump could send a water stream 21 bar*10 = 210 meters in the air. Say we put a pump every 200 meters, then to go the full 10,000 m length we would need 50 pumps. 

 Given the 25 kg weight for the full 10,000 m length of the carbon fiber pipe, each of the fifty 200 m long segments would only weigh 0.5 kilo. 

  The water thrust sent out the exhaust ports would need to support the 1.7 kg weight of the Worx, the 0.5 kg weight of the 200 m long pipe segment, and the battery. Say, we use a 0.3 kg battery, for a total weight of 2.5 kg. Then this is only a fraction of 2.5/57 of the full weight that can be supported. But since this is being exhausted out the ports, this same fraction 2.5/57 of the 0.5 gallon per minute of the flow would be lost. 

 Note also though this same fraction would be lost for each of the 50 stages. So the amount remaining at the end would be (1 - (2.5/57) )^50 = 0.1 of the original 0.5 GPM, or 0.05 GPM.

 As for the run time for the battery, commonly non-rechargeable lithium batteries can get 500 watt-hours per kilogram, and rechargeable lithiums about 250 wh per kilo. So a 0.3 non-rechargeable battery would have 150 wh. The 400 watt Worx can then run for 0.375 hours, 22 minutes. For the rechargeable battery it would be half that.

 This would be for a proof-of-principle demonstration to show you can reach thousands of kilometers at a relatively low cost. There are pressure washers though that put out thousands of psi, not just 325 psi, and put out 2 or more gallons per minute, not just 0.5 GPM. These could be used to reach the 100 km altitude for space.

 They can also be combined at hundreds of pumps at each stage to produce a water stream of sufficient flow to fight forest fires. 

 Another possibility is offered by a new development called the Pyrolance. It uses ultra high pressure water to cut through brick and concrete for the purposes of firefighting. It operates at up to 20 GPM and 1,450 PSI. Ten of these combined just on the ground, i.e., without staging, could be used to generate a kilometers long stream to fight forest fires.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5359669/This-technology-helps-firemen-fight-blazes-walls.html

There is also another pressure washer that operates at even high pressures, at 40,000 psi. This puts out 11 GPM, the VORTEX™ 36-9950-15A:

 Still, for higher altitudes and for longer distances it would better to use staging. The problem is significant amounts of water can be lost using the exhaust ports method to keep the pipe aloft. 

 I mentioned before the other company that proposes using a drone to keep the water hose aloft. You would need extra engines though for this. But if you're giving the water all this energy to reach high altitude why not use it as well to keep the pipe aloft? One way that would not lose water through the exhaust ports would have a turbine inside the pipe that would turn with the water flow. This turbine could then be connected through gears to propellers on the outside to support the pipe in the air.

 Another way would be to use a turbine or paddle wheel on the inside to connect to a piston on the outside. The piston would compress air, then release the air when a sufficient level of compression was reached to act like a compressed air rocket.

  Bob Clark

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1.)

From: "Robert Clark" <rgrego...@yahoo.com>

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.engr.mech,sci.space.policy

Subject: "Rockets not carrying fuel" and the space tower.

Date: 28 Mar 2005 12:52:00 -0800

 I copied below a proposal for space access where the propulsion is

provided by a highly pressurized fluid piped up from the ground [you

may need to use a fixed-width font such as Courier New to properly view

the diagram.]

  A key aspect of the proposal as desccribed below is that the material

forming the pipeline does not have to be especially strong as for

example to support its own weight. The force for supporting each

portion of the pipeline is provided by the thrust produced by

pressurized fluid vented along the entire length of the pipeline.

 Note that this also would provide a means of producing a space tower

or space elevator (to low Earth orbit).  You really wouldn't need to

attach a rocket to the end of the rocket itself. You would use the

pipeline to *slowly* raise the payload to the required altitude for

LEO. Then you could use a rocket attached to the payload only to give

the payload the required tangential orbital velocity. Note that the

fuel and rocket that would need to be attached to the payload would be

significantly less since this fuel would not be used for getting it up

to altitude.

 You could have this "space fountain" raised only when you wanted to

launch a payload, or you could have it permanently raised in the air.

This would work if you located the fountain next to a large permanently

flowing source of water such as a river. Then for example a ram pump,

which requires no moving parts, could be used to raise the water in the

fountain:

Contents for the pulser pump section of Gaiatech.

http://nxtwave.tripod.com/gaiatech/pulser/index.htm

Designing a Hydraulic Ram Pump.

http://www.lifewater.org/resources/rws4/rws4d5.htm

   Bob Clark

*****************************************************************************

(2.)

Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.mech.fluids, sci.engr.mech,

sci.space.policy

From: rgrego...@yahoo.com (Robert Clark)

Date: 20 Nov 2004 17:04:01 -0800

Local: Sat,  Nov 20 2004  5:04 pm

Subject: Re: "Rockets not carrying fuel" for orbital transfer.

"George Dishman" <george....@clara.co.uk> wrote in message

<news:110055...@damia.uk.clara.net>...

> "Robert Clark" <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:832ea96d.0411141957.1a521553@posting.google.com...

> >...

> > I came up with two other ideas for reducing the weight of the fluid

> > that had to be supported by the rocket as the tube trails behind the

> > rocket.

> > Firstly, I wanted to investigate both the possibilities of using

> > gaseous hydrogen or liquid hydrogen for the fluid carried by the tube.

> That drops the density so you need much higher

> speeds for the same flow rate so makes everything

> more difficult.

> > However, the liquid hydrogen scenario just gave too much weight. But

> > suppose the rocket didn't have to provide the propulsion for the fluid

> > in the tube? This is what I envision:

> <Snip pictures>

> All you have done is use a compound engine. The

> same mass is being accelerated to the same speed

> so will need the same fuel. You are forgetting

> the engines not only lift the craft but also the

> fuel needed to lift themselves. In fact with more

> engines, you have greatly increased the mass and

> the fuel needed, and all these schemes create a

> huge drag with air friction on the tube which also

> needs more fuel.

> Instead, imagine using a nearly rigid pipe as the

> arm of a trebuchet to pump fuel only over the first

> few seconds. That might be practical though the

> risks during disconnection are significant.

> George

 I'm also investigating the possibility of using a rigid structure to

reach into LEO. However, I think the efficiency of the tube method is

better than you suggest.

 Let's go back to the case of launch from Earth to LEO. I'm still

considering here that you're not using engines to combust fuel but are

only conducting a high pressure fluid up the tube to provide

propulsion. So the weight of the exhaust ports is quite small, not

that of a full blown engine.

 Let's estimate the the size of these exhaust ports.

          ^

          |

          |

Towards the rocket.

       |            |

       |            |<----Fluid carrying tube.

       |            |

       |            |

       |            |

       |___      ___|

       /__ |    | __\

      //  ||    ||  \\

     //|            |\\

    // |            | \\

       |            |

       |            |

       |            |

       |            |

       |            |

       |            |

       |___      ___|

       /__ |    | __\

      //  ||    ||  \\

     //|            |\\<---Exhaust ports directed aft.

    // |            | \\

       |            |

       |            |

       |            |

       |            |

       |            |

       |            |

       |___      ___|

       /__ |    | __\

      //  ||    ||  \\

     //|            |\\

    // |            | \\

       |            |

       |            |

       |            |

 Let's say you put a pair of these ports every 100 meters. Then each

pair of ports would only have to provide the thrust to support the

weight of 100 meters of the tube and fluid. Let's use liquid hydrogen

now. Its density is 71 kg/m^3. The volume of a 100 m tube, .3m wide is

Pi*(.15)^2*100 = 7.07 m^3. So the mass is 71 kg/m^3 times this or

about 502 kg, 1104 lbs.

 We're still using the presumption that we can communicate, say, a

pressure like the 6400 psi pressure produced by the shuttle liquid

hydrogen turbopumps up the tube. (Whatever type of pumps we use would

be located on the ground not the rocket so can be quite large.) Now we

want two exhaust ports to support 1104 lbs., or 552 lbs. each. So 552

lbs = (pressure)*(square area of ports) = 6400 * Pi * (1/4)*(diameter

of ports)^2 . We get a diameter of .33 in or 8 millimeters. Actually

they might even be smaller than this by using convergent-divergent

type nozzles used with rockets.

 Now remember the entire tubes weight is supported by these exhaust

ports so the great majority of the fluid that reaches the rocket will

be driving only  the payload and rocket. For a .3m = 12in wide tube

this could be a thrust of 6400 * Pi * 6^2 = 723,824 lbs. that is

solely used to loft the payload and (engineless) rocket, and again we

can probably do better than this using the nozzles normally used on

rockets.

 Note that we can get even more thrust from the exhaust ports by

making them wider or by using more than 2 at each level. This is

important since we can also solve the hypersonic drag problem. These

exhaust ports are not engines but it would be a simple (and light

weight matter) to give them directional ability. Then you could have

them automatically direct their thrust to counteract the drag caused

by each portion of the tube.

    Bob Clark

*****************************************************************************

(3.)

Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.mech.fluids, sci.engr.mech,

sci.space.policy

From: "Robert Clark" <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>

Date: 28 Mar 2005 12:52:00 -0800

Subject: "Rockets not carrying fuel" and the space tower.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/ab0c8a53330a521a

 I suggested in the posts on that thread of using pressurized fluid, liquid or gas, supplied from the ground to provide propulsion to a rocket and/or to support a tower to high altitude. The *principle* behind this of using pressurized fluid supplied from the ground to provide the thrust has now been demonstrated, if not to high altitude:

Fluid Motion: JetLev-Flyer H2O-Propelled Jet Pack By Chuck Squatriglia February 02, 2009 | 5:02:03 PM

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2009/02/fluid-motion--.html

James Bond-style jetpack powered by high-pressure water invented. 

A German entrepreneur, Hermann Ramke, has invented a James Bond-like jetpack powered by high-pressure water, called the JetLev-Flyer. 

Last Updated: 10:35AM GMT 17 Feb 2009 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4640262/James-Bond-style-jetpack-powered-by-high-pressure-water-invented.html

 The patent on the device is described here:

Water-Jet Pack Patented: The Jet Ski of 2020? By Rob Beschizza August 27, 2007 | 7:40:28 PM

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/08/water-jet-pack-.html

   Hmmm, I wonder where they got the idea for this from ...

       Bob Clark

*****************************************************************************

(4.)
From: Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com>

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.engr.mech,sci.space.policy

Subject: Re: Proven principle: "Rockets not carrying fuel" and the space tower.

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:42:42 -0800 (PST)

Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.astro:18935 sci.physics:123293 sci.mech.fluids:108 sci.engr.mech:1710 sci.space.policy:16716

On Feb 18, 8:29 pm, Brian Whatcott <bet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Robert Clark wrote:

> >...

> > Fluid Motion: JetLev-Flyer H2O-Propelled Jet Pack

> > By Chuck Squatriglia

> > February 02, 2009 | 5:02:03 PM

> >http://blog.wired.com/cars/2009/02/fluid-motion--.html

> > ...

> >    Hmmm, I wonder where they got the idea for this from ...

> 

> >        Bob Clark

> 

> Reminds me of the Mythbusters episode which set out to replicate

>   a uTube exploit: raising a car using fire truck hoses.

>   The fearless MB gang had to take the engine out, but they did it.

> 25 ft up or so, and reasonably stable

> 

> Brian W

 Thanks for that info:

* Hovering car *.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2BN6FLDjA

Myth Busters-Full size firehose car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFEOctt9-UE

 Actually, the fire hoses reminded me of a possible application - as a

rescue platform to the high upper floors of skyscrapers. It could also

be used to deliver water to fight the fires at the high upper floors.

 However, using water would be dropping quite large amounts of water

down below and at high pressure, possibly dangerously to those below.

This might be solved just be using pumps on the ground that used

compressed air instead of water. To get the high pressures and volume

of air required would require quite large and heavy pumps so these

would, likely, still have to stay on the ground, though air is

ubiquitous unlike the water case.

 If we did use water, could the water be recycled? What I'm thinking

of is encasing the hose(s) in a wider shroud so that the water is not

lost, and can be recycled. But what I'm puzzling about is whether

capturing this water will make you lose the upward lifting force. For

the water coming down will be hitting on the shroud with a downwards

force component which will tend to want to bring the structure

downwards. Perhaps just making the shroud wide enough so that

relatively little of the water hits the sides would work.

 Another possible solution might be to have the hose(s) rising in the

form of an arch. Is it possible to make the arch stay aloft if no

water is actually exiting higher up as with the jet packs? If you have

a horizontal water pipe with an elbow bend you can certainly provide a

force pushing radially outward from the elbow against a wall for

example. If you directed instead the water in the pipe or hose upwards

at an angle could you with sufficiently high pressure get the pipe or

hose to stay in the vertical arch orientation? I'm thinking it would

be unstable because as soon as it tended to lean over, there be

nothing to prevent if from further toppling over, unlike when there

are directional jets at the top of the structure. But imagine the

material were rigid as with a pipe. The pressure of the water is

provided at the bottom and the direction it is squirted into the pipe

can also be altered. If the pipe were short then squirting the water

in a direction opposite to the one it is falling since it is rigid

would tend to counteract the fall. But we are imaging a very long pipe

(hose). There would be long lever arm for the part that is falling and

a quite short one at the bottom which is provided for a force to

counteract the fall. The required force of the water to counteract the

fall might then be impractically large.

 If we made the pipe be flexibly jointed all along its length, could

we have directional nozzles inside the pipe at each joint to direct a

counteracting force of water, still only inside the pipe, that only

had to do this for the section of the pipe directly above it?

     Bob Clark

*****************************************************************************

(5.)

From: Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com>

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.engr.mech,sci.space.policy

Subject: Re: Proven principle: "Rockets not carrying fuel" and the space tower.

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:33:10 -0800 (PST)

 You know that new outdoor advertising method that has an air blown

dancing puppet outside a store? They are called "air dancers":

Sky Dancers Torero Inflatables.

 Here, air that is constrained to lie within a tube supports the tube

vertically by being blown vertically at high speed. If the air blower

is tipped at an angle the "dancer" will even be supported at an angle.

 Now, imagine your ordinary garden hose. If you point it upwards but

at an angle the water flow will come out in a parabolic arc. Then if

you had a very lightweight, flexible material wrapped in a tube shape

attached to the end of the hose the water should still be able to

support the weight of the lightweight tube which should then also

follow the parabolic arc. I'm thinking of some material like

polyethylene, which is used to make plastic bags. The reason why you

don't see this normally with your garden hose is because it is too

heavy to be supported by the water flow for any appreciable distance.

But at a couple of inches so, it will also.

 To test this you could cut a rectangle from a plastic bag, then tape

or glue an edge to make a cylinder of the same diameter as  your

garden hose, then attach it tightly to the end of the hose. See if you

can hold the hose at an angle to make the lightweight tube follow the

same parabolic arc as the water flow normally does all the way from

the end of the hose, upwards, and back down to the ground.

   Bob Clark

*****************************************************************************

(6.)

From: Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com>

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.engr.mech,sci.space.policy

Subject: Re: Proven principle: "Rockets not carrying fuel" and the space tower.

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:35:21 -0800 (PST)

On Feb 19, 5:30 am, tadchem <tad...@comcast.net> wrote:

> ...

> 

> You could also use it as a drought-buster.  You would only need to get

> up a few miles.

> ;-)

> 

> Tom Davidson

> Richmond, VA

 I like that idea. You could also use it fight forest fires. A big

problem though is that the entire horizontal distance, which could

range into many miles to reach a water source, would have to be a no

fly zone. But if I remember correctly for people who fly model rockets

for example you don't have to get special exemptions from the FAA as

long as your rockets don't travel over say a few hundred to a thousand

feet high. So perhaps we could keep the pipeline within that altitude

range.

 You also have the problem I mentioned before of supporting the tube

horizontally. It's possible it could work to be supported in a

parabolic arc by the water flow itself. However, as you see in the

case of the "air dancers" high winds can sometimes blow it all the way

to the ground. We wouldn't want that. Possibly a jointed pipeline with

directional, internal nozzles at each joint would also work.

 Another possibility is suggested by how bottle rockets actually work.

It's not just the water that supplies the thrust but also pressurized

air. Then we could use both pressurized water and air and have

external nozzles along its length to provide jet thrust to support the

weight and to counteract winds. Then we could use molecular sieves,

which can be tailored just to pass water or to pass only air, in front

of the nozzles so that only air exits out of these nozzles providing

the thrust along the horizontal length.

 Instead of using molecular sieves, we might also just have the

pressurized air flowing in an outer layer within the pipeline to go to

the external nozzles, while the pressurized water only flows in an

inner tube.

  Bob Clark

*****************************************************************************

(7.)

From: Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com>

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.engr.mech,sci.space.policy

Subject: Re: Proven principle: "Rockets not carrying fuel" and the space tower.

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:43:31 -0800 (PST)

On Feb 23, 2:03=A0pm, charlie...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Clark, why don't you do some analysis before posting these physically

> impossible ideas.

> 

> Just quoting sources doesn't prover your point

> Also while you are at it, get a clue. Do a little research on

> hydrostatic pressure

Hydrogen storage in capillary arrays.

N.K. Zhevago and V.I. Glebova

Abstract

"We have developed the technology of hydrogen storage in capillary

arrays, and we present the corresponding theoretical background. The

technology can be effectively used for safe transportation and storage

of highly pressurized hydrogen in mobile systems, ranging from

domestic electronic devices to ground and sea vehicles."

Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 48, Issue 5, May 2007, Pages

1554-1559.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2006.11.017

A New Technology for Hydrogen Storage in Capillary Arrays.

Dan Eliezer, Martin Beckmann-Kluge, Merek Gebauer, Kai Holtappels.

Introduction

"The major obstacles of hydrogen use, in replacing fossil oil, in cars

and trucks is the volume and mass of the tank and safety issues of

transferring and releasing the hydrogen.

C.En Ltd. has developed an innovative technology based on capillary

arrays for a safe infusing, storage and controlled release of

hydrogen. The company=92s technology enables the storage of a

significantly greater amount of hydrogen than other technologies. It

will allow cars =96 equipped with a 60-liter tank weighing no more that

50 kg to travel more than 500 km - more than any

alternative technologies using hydrogen.

Experiments and testing of C.En's patents-pending system for storage

in and release of hydrogen from capillary arrays is underway at BAM,

Germany's highly-respected Federal Institute for Materials Research

and Testing."

http://www.cenh2go.com/PDF/CEnPoster_small.pdf

 Sounds like an interesting idea right? Using hollow glass fibers for

hydrogen storage. Afterall, high strength glass fibers such as S-glass

are among the strongest of fibers:

Tensile strength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensile_strength

From: "Robert Clark" <rgrego...@yahoo.com>

Date: 22 Apr 2005 12:27:13 -0700

Subject: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.

Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.materials, sci.engr.mech,

sci.energy

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/b0f6adecc2f96eda

    Bob Clark

*****************************************************************************

(8.)

From: Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com>

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.engr.mech,sci.space.policy

Subject: Re: Proven principle: "Rockets not carrying fuel" and the space tower.

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:45:23 -0700 (PDT)

On Feb 21, 10:35am, Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Feb 19, 5:30 am, tadchem <tad...@comcast.net> wrote:

> 

> > You could also use it as a drought-buster. You would only need to get

> > up a few miles.

> > ;-)

> 

> > Tom Davidson

> > Richmond, VA

> 

> I like that idea. You could also use it fight forest fires. A big

> problem though is that the entire horizontal distance, which could

> range into many miles to reach a water source, would have to be a no

> fly zone. But if I remember correctly for people who fly modelrockets

> for example you don't have to get special exemptions from the FAA as

> long as yourrocketsdon't travel over say a few hundred to a thousand

> feet high. So perhaps we could keep the pipeline within that altitude

> range.

>  You also have the problem I mentioned before of supporting the tube

> horizontally. It's possible it could work to be supported in a

> parabolic arc by the water flow itself. However, as you see in the

> case of the "air dancers" high winds can sometimes blow it all the way

> to the ground. We wouldn't want that. Possibly a jointed pipeline with

> directional, internal nozzles at each joint would also work.

> Another possibility is suggested by how bottle rockets actually work.

> It's not just the water that supplies the thrust but also pressurized

> air. Then we could use both pressurized water and air and have

> external nozzles along its length to provide jet thrust to support the

> weight and to counteract winds. Then we could use molecular sieves,

> which can be tailored just to pass water or to pass only air, in front

> of the nozzles so that only air exits out of these nozzles providing

> the thrust along the horizontal length.

> Instead of using molecular sieves, we might also just have the

> pressurized air flowing in an outer layer within the pipeline to go to

> the external nozzles, while the pressurized water only flows in an

> inner tube.

> 

> Bob Clark

 If this is feasible we might use it also to limit the destructiveness

of hurricanes. A single hurricane can cause thousands of deaths and

billions of dollars in damage. Interestingly it is known that a

reduction of only 5 degrees Fahrenheit in the ocean surface

temperature can cause a hurricane to dissipate. Because of that I

suggested putting cooling chemicals or ice in the path of a hurricane

to reduce its strength:

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.geo.meteorology

From: rgrego...@yahoo.com

Date: 24 Sep 2005 16:51:45 -0700

Subject: Could we use endothermic(heat absorbing) reactions to reduce

hurricane strength?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/browse_frm/thread/659438e843bae884

 The problem would be getting the required massive amounts to the area

in time. The raised pipeline might provide a means to accomplish this.

There are pumps that can put out hundreds of cubic meters or hundreds

of metric tons of water a second:

Parched Saurashtra now has "world's largest" pump.

Posted: Mar 22, 2007 at 0054 hrs IST

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/parched-saurashtra-now-has-worlds-largest=-pump/26316/

 If you pumped the water mixed with the right freezing point lowering

salt, the water could be kept liquid at temperatures of dozens of

degrees below freezing and you might only need in the range of tens of

thousands of metric tons to accomplish the temperature drop, which

could be pumped with these largest pumps in a matter of minutes.

     Bob Clark

**************************************************************************