Remember me
▼ Content

2020 Hackaday Challenge


2020 Hackaday Challenge09-05-2019 03:54
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
This could be phun. And with about 1 year to consider it, it'll give everyone the chance to decide if a climate-debate.com entry would be a thought.
I can't give away the invention yet but it is simple and it's principle could probably be demonstrated for under $500.
It would require scientific sensors and those I would pay for. It's a lo-tech solution if it works. The topic would be sea water desalination. I've noticed that countries like Iran and the US have fresh water shortages. Maybe Iran would soften it's stance and migrants in the US would still be needed. I have been told that Americans love migrants.
And this is all I can say for now. And if things go well for me over the next year, I think you guys will be up for this. And since I am learning more maths, not sure if it will help but could probably write out an equation to consider how much energy it would take to realize an x amount of water desalinated.
With fresh water, there is also for agricultural use which is allowed to have twice as much salt content as potable or drinking water.
What can I say? You guys keep things interesting.
09-05-2019 04:10
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
Exactly what do you mean by calling it a "climate-debate.com entry". Personally I would be interested in seeing any system that could help the problem of water starved areas.
09-05-2019 04:40
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
Nature does a fair job of desalinating as is, and free too. Most places would do better, just managing their storm water better. When it's raining, most places just want to get rid of the ground water quickly, fear the flood. Then they complain, when there is a dry spell, there's no water...

So, what do you do with the salt? Just dump it back in the ocean? Guess it shouldn't matter much, doubtful there would be enough to effect anything. Besides, oceans have historically been a good place to dump stuff, it'll get over it. Desalinating water has been going on for quite some time, not sure if any new designs are needed, to meet any demand. It still costs money/energy to move the water, plus the cost of removing the salt and any other processing needed. Generally, sea level, is about as low as you can go, so gravity isn't your friend here, get to carry all that water uphill.

Think this is really sort of a small niche type of tech, really not on the planet-saving scale. Most populated areas get sufficient rainfall, they just try to drain it off quickly, rather than save it. Takes time, sometimes days for water to seep into the ground. Normally doesn't take an hour around here, unless the ground get saturated from frequent rain. Our soil is little more than beach sand, but real dirt doesn't pass water as quick.

Consider last year in California, they cried most of the year about drought, wildfires (set by PG&E). Then it rained, they had floods, mudslides, houses falling off cliffs... Just a normal year in California. This year should be about the same, except somebody else will take the blame for the wildfires...
09-05-2019 05:30
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Nature does a fair job of desalinating as is, and free too. Most places would do better, just managing their storm water better. When it's raining, most places just want to get rid of the ground water quickly, fear the flood. Then they complain, when there is a dry spell, there's no water...

So, what do you do with the salt? Just dump it back in the ocean? Guess it shouldn't matter much, doubtful there would be enough to effect anything. Besides, oceans have historically been a good place to dump stuff, it'll get over it. Desalinating water has been going on for quite some time, not sure if any new designs are needed, to meet any demand. It still costs money/energy to move the water, plus the cost of removing the salt and any other processing needed. Generally, sea level, is about as low as you can go, so gravity isn't your friend here, get to carry all that water uphill.

Think this is really sort of a small niche type of tech, really not on the planet-saving scale. Most populated areas get sufficient rainfall, they just try to drain it off quickly, rather than save it. Takes time, sometimes days for water to seep into the ground. Normally doesn't take an hour around here, unless the ground get saturated from frequent rain. Our soil is little more than beach sand, but real dirt doesn't pass water as quick.

Consider last year in California, they cried most of the year about drought, wildfires (set by PG&E). Then it rained, they had floods, mudslides, houses falling off cliffs... Just a normal year in California. This year should be about the same, except somebody else will take the blame for the wildfires...



Ever hear of Caesarea? How did they keep their harbour from silting up? What type of cement did they use and why did it set under water? Just some things to consider.

edited to add; hydraulic cement sets up under water. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-hydraulic-cement-uses-and-how-to-apply-845076

As for Caesarea's harbour, they had to be mindful of how water flowed through it and at what volume or the harbour would silt up.
And with rivers in the US, storm run off helps to prevent them from becoming clogged with silt. This is the same anywhere but about 1/2 of the US is going dry.
To give an idea of why silt matters; https://www.internationalrivers.org/sedimentation-problems-with-dams

I'll try not to give out any more answers. Just info for people to consider.
Edited on 09-05-2019 05:41
09-05-2019 05:51
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
Its too bad they did not do the southern part as well as they did the northern. Of course the tsunami and the fault line didn't help.
09-05-2019 06:49
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
I check Hack-a-Day earlier, but couldn't find your entry. You should post a like, so we can 'like' it, which will pay you $500, if you are in the top 20 liked projects. Even though I don't see a huge demand, doesn't mean I can't appreciate a unique idea, or improvement.

Silt is the result of erosion, mostly by the water. Dumping all that storm water into rivers, streams, and canals, accelerates the erosion, and transport of the silt down stream to the ocean. Where the rivers would normally be slow moving, silt would settle out some, and sit a while, maybe even long enough to form some sedimentary rocks... Guess having a clean and pretty harbor is more important though. Silt is natural, rivers change course, move a little, which some folks don't like, screws with property borders, water rights, water front homes. Nature can be so unreasonable...

Concrete is a chemical reaction, doesn't just dry out, and it's done. Takes weeks, even months for it to cure, and gain it's full strength.
09-05-2019 07:46
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I check Hack-a-Day earlier, but couldn't find your entry. You should post a like, so we can 'like' it, which will pay you $500, if you are in the top 20 liked projects. Even though I don't see a huge demand, doesn't mean I can't appreciate a unique idea, or improvement.

Silt is the result of erosion, mostly by the water. Dumping all that storm water into rivers, streams, and canals, accelerates the erosion, and transport of the silt down stream to the ocean. Where the rivers would normally be slow moving, silt would settle out some, and sit a while, maybe even long enough to form some sedimentary rocks... Guess having a clean and pretty harbor is more important though. Silt is natural, rivers change course, move a little, which some folks don't like, screws with property borders, water rights, water front homes. Nature can be so unreasonable...

Concrete is a chemical reaction, doesn't just dry out, and it's done. Takes weeks, even months for it to cure, and gain it's full strength.



Erosion can result from clear cutting. Trees and under brush reduce the amount of natural erosion. If the flow of a river is restricted then that river will silt up. Silt is usually deposited in the estuary or delta of a river. And if fish spawn in that river, that won't happen. This is one reason why maintaining the flow or volume of a river matters. Just another example of why a discussion/debate matters.
09-05-2019 08:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
James___ wrote:
This could be phun. And with about 1 year to consider it, it'll give everyone the chance to decide if a climate-debate.com entry would be a thought.
I can't give away the invention yet but it is simple and it's principle could probably be demonstrated for under $500.

Should be easy to demonstrate then.
James___ wrote:
It would require scientific sensors and those I would pay for.
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' sensor. Science is not a sensor. I assume these sensors are something you can obtain without too much difficulty.
James___ wrote:
It's a lo-tech solution if it works. The topic would be sea water desalination.
Always a need for those.
James___ wrote:
I've noticed that countries like Iran and the US have fresh water shortages. Maybe Iran would soften it's stance and migrants in the US would still be needed. I have been told that Americans love migrants.
They don't have shortages, but the water they do have is unevenly distributed.
James___ wrote:
And this is all I can say for now. And if things go well for me over the next year, I think you guys will be up for this. And since I am learning more maths, not sure if it will help but could probably write out an equation to consider how much energy it would take to realize an x amount of water desalinated.
Depends on the method and the rate of desalination.
James___ wrote:
With fresh water, there is also for agricultural use which is allowed to have twice as much salt content as potable or drinking water.
Salting fields at any level is never a good idea. Agricultural needs for water tend to be pretty high, more than desalination plants put out.
James___ wrote:
What can I say? You guys keep things interesting.


Blind forums, such as this one, is after all, a community.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 08:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Nature does a fair job of desalinating as is, and free too. Most places would do better, just managing their storm water better. When it's raining, most places just want to get rid of the ground water quickly, fear the flood. Then they complain, when there is a dry spell, there's no water...

So, what do you do with the salt? Just dump it back in the ocean? Guess it shouldn't matter much, doubtful there would be enough to effect anything. Besides, oceans have historically been a good place to dump stuff, it'll get over it. Desalinating water has been going on for quite some time, not sure if any new designs are needed, to meet any demand. It still costs money/energy to move the water, plus the cost of removing the salt and any other processing needed. Generally, sea level, is about as low as you can go, so gravity isn't your friend here, get to carry all that water uphill.

Think this is really sort of a small niche type of tech, really not on the planet-saving scale. Most populated areas get sufficient rainfall, they just try to drain it off quickly, rather than save it. Takes time, sometimes days for water to seep into the ground. Normally doesn't take an hour around here, unless the ground get saturated from frequent rain. Our soil is little more than beach sand, but real dirt doesn't pass water as quick.

Consider last year in California, they cried most of the year about drought, wildfires (set by PG&E). Then it rained, they had floods, mudslides, houses falling off cliffs... Just a normal year in California. This year should be about the same, except somebody else will take the blame for the wildfires...


The salt is usually discarded into the ocean or even sold on the market as 'sea salt'.

It won't hurt the ocean to salt it. The evaporation of water vapor sufficient to rain on someone's parade leaves the salt behind just the same.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 08:55
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
screws with property borders, water rights, water front homes
Even state lines which were defined as being the river line when the states were formed.
09-05-2019 08:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Nature does a fair job of desalinating as is, and free too. Most places would do better, just managing their storm water better. When it's raining, most places just want to get rid of the ground water quickly, fear the flood. Then they complain, when there is a dry spell, there's no water...

So, what do you do with the salt? Just dump it back in the ocean? Guess it shouldn't matter much, doubtful there would be enough to effect anything. Besides, oceans have historically been a good place to dump stuff, it'll get over it. Desalinating water has been going on for quite some time, not sure if any new designs are needed, to meet any demand. It still costs money/energy to move the water, plus the cost of removing the salt and any other processing needed. Generally, sea level, is about as low as you can go, so gravity isn't your friend here, get to carry all that water uphill.

Think this is really sort of a small niche type of tech, really not on the planet-saving scale. Most populated areas get sufficient rainfall, they just try to drain it off quickly, rather than save it. Takes time, sometimes days for water to seep into the ground. Normally doesn't take an hour around here, unless the ground get saturated from frequent rain. Our soil is little more than beach sand, but real dirt doesn't pass water as quick.

Consider last year in California, they cried most of the year about drought, wildfires (set by PG&E). Then it rained, they had floods, mudslides, houses falling off cliffs... Just a normal year in California. This year should be about the same, except somebody else will take the blame for the wildfires...



Ever hear of Caesarea? How did they keep their harbour from silting up?

Looking at a map of the place, they don't have to really worry about it. No river empties into the harbor (such as it is...not much of a harbor).
James___ wrote:
What type of cement did they use and why did it set under water? Just some things to consider.

All cement will set underwater. Cement does not require air to set. So-called 'hydraulic' cement is designed to set quick and fast so as to plug leaks.
James___ wrote:
As for Caesarea's harbour, they had to be mindful of how water flowed through it and at what volume or the harbour would silt up.

No river empties into the harbor.
James___ wrote:
And with rivers in the US, storm run off helps to prevent them from becoming clogged with silt. This is the same anywhere but about 1/2 of the US is going dry.

Storm runoff produces silt. Anything that causes the river to flow produces silt.
James___ wrote:
To give an idea of why silt matters; https://www.internationalrivers.org/sedimentation-problems-with-dams

One reason. Another is the delta of the river can become quite a mess, rendering the river unnavigable when it otherwise could be. Deltas like this can also change the course of the river. This can happen on a flat area too, where a river is winding. Silt deposits will change the course of the river just as easily.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 08:58
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I check Hack-a-Day earlier, but couldn't find your entry. You should post a like, so we can 'like' it, which will pay you $500, if you are in the top 20 liked projects. Even though I don't see a huge demand, doesn't mean I can't appreciate a unique idea, or improvement.

Silt is the result of erosion, mostly by the water. Dumping all that storm water into rivers, streams, and canals, accelerates the erosion, and transport of the silt down stream to the ocean. Where the rivers would normally be slow moving, silt would settle out some, and sit a while, maybe even long enough to form some sedimentary rocks... Guess having a clean and pretty harbor is more important though. Silt is natural, rivers change course, move a little, which some folks don't like, screws with property borders, water rights, water front homes. Nature can be so unreasonable...

Concrete is a chemical reaction, doesn't just dry out, and it's done. Takes weeks, even months for it to cure, and gain it's full strength.



Erosion can result from clear cutting. Trees and under brush reduce the amount of natural erosion. If the flow of a river is restricted then that river will silt up. Silt is usually deposited in the estuary or delta of a river. And if fish spawn in that river, that won't happen. This is one reason why maintaining the flow or volume of a river matters. Just another example of why a discussion/debate matters.


It's still the force of the water rushing down hill, that moves the muck. The higher up the banks, the more sludge that gets pulled. More water, just makes it worse. All that stuff being carried by those rushing waters won't settle untils the waterway hits a wide spot, like the ocean... Silt is going to stop any river, that water is going some place, either over, around, or continue to spread out, until it can continue moving, as fluids do. Often a problem for folks that like to live right along the rivers, but it's worth the scenic view... Nobody likes change, so they feel a need to control things, even if it mess up something else.
09-05-2019 08:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
Its too bad they did not do the southern part as well as they did the northern. Of course the tsunami and the fault line didn't help.


Whut? Are you talking about something completely unrelated to the topic at hand again?


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 09:40
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
He mentioned a sea port and mentioned the concrete used. That was in connection with that comment.
09-05-2019 17:39
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(599)
I had a wonderful idea about how to reduce the cost of transporting the desalinated water, and distributing it. Folks have been sold on the health benefits of drinking bottled water for quite some time now. I've never seen any real value beyond convenience, for single-serving containers of bottled water, let alone the price. A few pennies worth of plastic, and what is essentially no different than the tap water most folks already have access to. Would also be considerably cheaper to install additional filter, if your happy with water quality coming out. Basically, the product costs pennies on the dollar to produce and transport for sale. Trendy folks are the largest consumers, but there are people with horrible well water, there are times when tap water is consider unsafe, needs to be boiled (tasty), or as disaster relief/humanitarian aid. Bottling the desalinated water, and selling it, would defer many of the costs related, might even turn a profit. With good marketing, and a smart sales team, wouldn't be to hard to compete, or even crush some of the competition.

You'd have to be very careful not to harm any animals, or the environment though, since bottled water is in the 'trendy' domain, and those folks are going to appreciate being undersold. Bottled water isn't just for drinking either, tends to get used for many other things as well. Mostly, I've always thought bottled water was a scam. I never bought the 'spring water' thing, figured it's just filtered water from a local source, bottled throughout the country. Why ship filtered water all over the place, when all you need is the bottles and labels. Since you would already be near the ocean, it wouldn't be too much trouble to load up boat loads, to be shipped anywhere that needs fresh water. You really should have any problem selling your idea, or getting funding, grants to work on it. The IPCC prophecies paint a dark future very soon, daily catastrophic events, worldwide. Which will require emergency humanitarian aid. Fresh water being on the top of the much needed list, specially for the scorched-earth scenarios, better than gold. After a day or two, most people aren't concerned about taste, and many turn to less than safe sources, the risk is smaller than dehydration death. I've seen the tractor trailer loads of water taken to disaster areas in Florida, helped load a few, even gotten a few 24-packs for myself. And I know what I've seen, was just a tiny portion, of the water shipped to those areas. 100,000 gallons wouldn't be a generous estimate. Probably find some actual numbers online some place. I remember seeing lists, like from the Red Cross, and a few others, mostly advertisement, and back-patting. At least the Red Cross still goes into affected areas quickly, and do all they can, regardless of cost, unlike a lot of charities, which taken in your donations, and simply write checks to help cover the cost of some other organization.
09-05-2019 18:28
James___
★★★★☆
(1172)
I hope this doesn't over complicate things. It seems that for these 2 rivers that rainfall isn't sufficient.

About the Rio Grande;
https://www.rgisc.org/about-the-rio-grande.html

About the Colorado river;
https://www.americanrivers.org/river/colorado-river/

Those are 2 rivers that I'd like to think could benefit from improved desalination.

And Washington state it seems is trying to restore stream flow for some reason.
https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Streamflow-restoration

Quick question for you guys. Do you guys know why rivers go from meandering through a valley to flowing in a straighter line along the valley floor which is smooth? Or why in other places a river will form canyons? We can discuss geology if you guys like. I mean the Colorado river has created canyons in some areas while the Mississippi river meanders slowly through the Midwest and silts up. You guys are familiar with some of the major rivers in the US and why some people are concerned about what is happening to them because of different things that are impacting them, right?

Of course if Americans were smart they'd just move to where the water is. That's the real problem, isn't it? Americans want to live where there really isn't enough water to support agricultural production or even for cities and the water those need.
Edited on 09-05-2019 18:42
09-05-2019 19:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
He mentioned a sea port and mentioned the concrete used. That was in connection with that comment.


Whut? You hear someone talk about a sea port and immediately start talking about north part and south part and tsunamis???

Are you trying to say this sea port is in Japan??


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 19:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
James___ wrote:
I hope this doesn't over complicate things. It seems that for these 2 rivers that rainfall isn't sufficient.

About the Rio Grande;
https://www.rgisc.org/about-the-rio-grande.html

About the Colorado river;
https://www.americanrivers.org/river/colorado-river/

Those are 2 rivers that I'd like to think could benefit from improved desalination.

And Washington state it seems is trying to restore stream flow for some reason.
https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Streamflow-restoration

Quick question for you guys. Do you guys know why rivers go from meandering through a valley to flowing in a straighter line along the valley floor which is smooth? Or why in other places a river will form canyons? We can discuss geology if you guys like. I mean the Colorado river has created canyons in some areas while the Mississippi river meanders slowly through the Midwest and silts up. You guys are familiar with some of the major rivers in the US and why some people are concerned about what is happening to them because of different things that are impacting them, right?

Of course if Americans were smart they'd just move to where the water is. That's the real problem, isn't it? Americans want to live where there really isn't enough water to support agricultural production or even for cities and the water those need.


It is sufficient for all these rivers. They exist.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 20:35
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(424)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
He mentioned a sea port and mentioned the concrete used. That was in connection with that comment.


Whut? You hear someone talk about a sea port and immediately start talking about north part and south part and tsunamis???

Are you trying to say this sea port is in Japan??
he talked about the concrete they used. My comment was about the fact that the concrete on the north side was better than the south side. It failed, and part of it was due to the concrete, but that might have survived if it wasn't for the fault and the tsunami.
09-05-2019 21:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7663)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
He mentioned a sea port and mentioned the concrete used. That was in connection with that comment.


Whut? You hear someone talk about a sea port and immediately start talking about north part and south part and tsunamis???

Are you trying to say this sea port is in Japan??
he talked about the concrete they used. My comment was about the fact that the concrete on the north side was better than the south side. It failed, and part of it was due to the concrete, but that might have survived if it wasn't for the fault and the tsunami.


What north side? What south side? What tsunami? What fault? What failure?


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate 2020 Hackaday Challenge:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
White House eyes nuclear weapons expert to lead challenge to climate science019-04-2019 19:15
Scientific Challenge8304-08-2017 02:03
A "challenge" for you, IB and Into9218-10-2016 22:30
GREAT ENERGY CHALLENGE GRANT PROJECT COMPLETED003-01-2014 06:44
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact