Hydrophobic Etching

That stuff is cool, I wonder what would happen if you built a sea wall out of it? It be cool if it would create an effect with energy to harness.
 
If it repels water with an "intricate structure," what will that do to the lift and drag characteristics of the wing?

A cooking pan has an obvious problem in that food would cook really badly if it won't contact the pan.

Henning, it will have the same energy implications as a conventional seawall.
 
Last edited:
Really cool! So if we do this to a basketball court and get our shoes wet, will we jump higher?
 
MAKG1 said:
If it repels water with an "intricate structure," what will that do to the lift and drag characteristics of the wing?

A cooking pan has an obvious problem in that food would cook really badly if it won't contact the pan.

Henning, it will have the same energy implications as a conventional seawall.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a lot of energy at the sea wall, both physical and chemical. I'm wondering what the reaction would be between the water and material under those conditions. The reaction determines if you can harness the energy or not.
 
This would be great for boats, possibly eliminate the need to bottom paint the boat, although if it only works with water it won't stop barnacles, look for it on the next Americas Cup
 
teejayevans said:
This would be great for boats, possibly eliminate the need to bottom paint the boat, although if it only works with water it won't stop barnacles, look for it on the next Americas Cup
Click to expand...

A few cups ago, the first round of the IACC boats, some of the teams were using this "prismatic textured film" that NASA had developed. Never got the skinny on how that all worked out. Cup boats will likely be foiling again so it will allow for some interesting experimentation since it's easier to produce a modified foil than hull.
 
Its the thought that I had when the environmentalists decided that everyone needed solar. . . . so if everyone had solar and even a tiny fraction was converted to electricity - what would that do to the Earth's radiation balance?

All of a sudden you are taking a fraction of the incoming short wave radiation and converting it to electricity and then work and then heat and light. When the sunlight falls on the impermeable surfaces or on grass and forest and even snow - most of it gets converted to infrared to radiate away later, which is then trapped by atmospheric chemicals and then re-radiated as a even longer way radiation thereby creating the effect which keeps the Earth's average temp [in 2014] at 58.46F [rather than the 58.45 it was in 2013 - that hottest year ever BS].

So, that will shift the radiation balance of the atmosphere if we convert even 0.5% of the incoming solar radiation to electricity. . . . and what will be the unintended effects of that on climate?
 
Henning said:
Well, there is a lot of energy at the sea wall, both physical and chemical. I'm wondering what the reaction would be between the water and material under those conditions. The reaction determines if you can harness the energy or not.
Click to expand...

If it reacts with the seawall, the seawall will not last long.

The usual name for that is "corrosion."
 
comanchepilot said:
Its the thought that I had when the environmentalists decided that everyone needed solar. . . . so if everyone had solar and even a tiny fraction was converted to electricity - what would that do to the Earth's radiation balance?

All of a sudden you are taking a fraction of the incoming short wave radiation and converting it to electricity and then work and then heat and light. When the sunlight falls on the impermeable surfaces or on grass and forest and even snow - most of it gets converted to infrared to radiate away later, which is then trapped by atmospheric chemicals and then re-radiated as a even longer way radiation thereby creating the effect which keeps the Earth's average temp [in 2014] at 58.46F [rather than the 58.45 it was in 2013 - that hottest year ever BS].

So, that will shift the radiation balance of the atmosphere if we convert even 0.5% of the incoming solar radiation to electricity. . . . and what will be the unintended effects of that on climate?
Click to expand...

I always have brought that point up to the anti nuclear crowd. There is no free energy, it all does something. Sunlight creates wind, wind balances the energy in our climate and uses that energy to distribute freshly distiller water. There is always an operating range, but there are always operating limits, to any system. Mankind uses approximately 15TW of energy continuously, we convert energy at an average efficiency of approx 25%, and this is compounded through multiple conversions in refining and transportation, but lets just call it 25%. That means we need to harvest 60TW continuously. That is 60TW of energy that was driving the climate, distributing heat and water around the globe. When you remove that energy from the climate and redistribute it, what will be the effect?:dunno: this doesn't bring up the fact that you need excess production capacity to make up and store energy for when the sun and wind aren't cooperating, plus we need to expand harvest to account for growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top