Talk:Vortex engine

Untitled

Q: Is it possible that a wind could distrupt a medium sized tornado? A: yes, and there is mention of controlling the vortex speed to prevent having it disrupted by winds.

I added the category Fringe Science. It doesn't violate conservation of energy so it is not pseudoscience. Whether this can improve the efficiency of a thermal power plant or generate power on it's own is far from demonstrated. Paul Studier 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as an irrelevant matter, technically this appears to primarily be technology, or at best applied science, rather than pure science. But I don't know what the correct category would be to replace Fringe Science with... Conceptual Technology? Speculative Technology? There are plenty more of those, like space elevators, maglev launch systems etc. I wonder how those are categorized. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think energy towers of some kind belong over shopping mall parking lots. The greenhouse canopy would have the added benefit of providing a roof when it rains. With a vortex system instead of a big chimney (see Solar_updraft_tower) it would be easier to build a system that could be mounted on the roof of a shopping mall for under six figures.Unsigned comment by 208.190.202.56, 03.28 17 October 2007. (In future please sign your posting with four tildes so we know who is saying what. Thanks) Geoffrey Wickham 04:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

References

The sources are mostly primary, and self-published (see WP:PATENTS). As such, for notability we need more sources as this arguably fails WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 19:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe this article should be proposed for deletion. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about deleting the article. Although the Vortex Engine article refers to original research, it is a summary of a new and important concept. It is right to call it fringe-science, the problem with the concept is scale, it is entirely too small to operate as conceived.

Further, the explanation of the vortex process in the open atmosphere is incorrect. Meteorology mainly studies and discusses tornadogenesis, the process by which tornadoes are created in nature. Since nature is a compendium of complex and haphazard processes, affected by varying topography and atmospheric conditions, the science is uncertain (Davies). Finally, the efficiency hoped for by proponents is out of proportion, 20% efficiency has no foundation in any kind of mathematically supported theory. Vortices often occur from industrial chimneys, without any noticeable capturing of ambient energy, or any kind of longevity. They are inconsequential common phenomena.

Nevertheless, the concept does offer a clue about organizing and concentrating wind, ambient, and latent heat energy in the open atmosphere. Although the conception of the vortex process is incorrect as offered by the Vortex Engine, it is still a valid and valuable concept. Vortices seem to be a product of downdraft vectors combing with, and to some degree, canceling out the vertical component of updrafts in the open atmosphere. That their power must come from vector inertia, is implicit in professional discourse, although not necessarily explicit. The actual process of the vortex is not meteorology's main concern. In the literature the mechanics of vortices seem to be taken from granted. This idea of combining vectors and canceling vertical components is an idea from Pluvinergy, which is also in the fringe of the science, with its own theoretical shortcomings. I like the idea of "speculative technology." Its roomy, and sincere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PluviAl (talk • contribs) 17:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)