User talk:Rohar1
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Bi-directional Energy Tower, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. JdH 14:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Bi-Directional Energy Tower page
The energytower.org project is an open design project and group, which I initiated. I am not the only contributor to the project. The article content is in respect to the open project. I have no issue with deletion of the bi-directional energy tower page on the grounds that there is no existing prototype, but you have to delete the water spray downdraft tower page on the same grounds. The existance of 2 patents for the water spray down draft tower and no known implementation since the original 1975 patent doesn't make it any less of a vanity page than the bi-directional energy tower.
- Go ahead, please propose it for deletion: I wouldn't oppose. Neither will I oppose if you propose to delete the solar updraft tower article. There is one difference though: for those proposals there are publications in the scientific literature, and from different investigators too. On the other hand, AFAIK the only source of the Bi-directional Energy Tower is the http://www.energytower.org website; no publications in scientific literature are quoted. In that respect it is quite similar to the Floating Solar Chimney Technology article which was deleted a while back after some discussion.
All of these technologies suffer of the same problem: they have been around for a long time, and are not going anywhere. The simple reason for that is is economic feasibilily: the Cost of Energy needs to be competitive with conventional technology such as coal fired plants; see paragraph on Financial hurdles I stuck into the Talk:Solar updraft tower a while back. All of these, including your scheme, don't even come close. On the other hand, wind turbines are already competitive, and Solar thermal energy in the near future.- The energytower.org project is a fundamental design enhancement as has only been around for 6 months.
If this is some arbitrary feasibility decision on theoretical technology, then the page should not be removed. There are no commercial implementations of either the solar tower or water spray downdraft tower. The water spray down draft tower and the solar tower are limited to arid locations and as renewable power systems are competing directly with SEGS/CSP solar steam plants which have been commercially implemented for more than 20 years. Both the water spray tower and solar tower are not down-scalable and require massive towers and large investment to be non-trivial. Due to the location dependence, competition with existing SEGS technology, lack of electrical power need in the middle of the desert and the cost of long distance electrical transmission, both the water spray and solar towers have not been able to secure financing.
If you are really interested in the technology, examine the Calculations documents. In a hybrid solar steam/convection system, the convection turbine produces only 10% of the power of the steam turbine for a moderate height tower (100m). The solar tower and water spray tower don't have much hope of competing with SEGS systems and cannot be located outside of arid regions. Water vapor is less dense than air, evaporating water to cool air causes it to be less dense than other cooling methods and is not very efficient. This is counter-intuitive for many people and that has made the water spray idea look good on paper, but not in reality.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rohar1 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
- I would like to suggest the following: Condense the Bi-directional Energy Towerarticle into one short paragraph, and stick that into either the solar updraft tower or energy tower (downdraft) article. And turn the Bi-directional Energy Tower into a re-direct page. JdH 14:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you are proposing that an attempt to take credit for a 30 year old theoretical patented design by a Ph.D who took publicly funded research, patented previous work with no major improvement and then formed a company in an attempt to secure investment somehow has more validity than an open project by someone with over 20 years of practical system design experience, you are probably in the wrong place. Wikipedia runs on LAMP and all 5 of those projects were managed in the same open manner and have been successful where commercial ventures have failed.
- The energytower.org project is currently being evaluated by Saskatchewan Environment, ISES and many commercial entities, give it a chance. On the other hand, I am working on this without hope of personal financial gain, so if you have the overwhelming urge to promote IP theft and help EnviroMission and Sharav Sluices attempt to secure funding, go ahead. If you check, most of Dr. Zaslavsky's links are broken (including energytower.net) and most of the traces of his company have disappeared.
You may want to look at User talk:ScottDavis/Archive 7#solar_tower to see wat EnviroMission employee Flexme thinks of me: in effect he blames me for sinking their Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF) application.
But what I think of EnviroMission (or Sharav Sluices for that matter) is not the issue here. The question really is: What is Wikipedia and what is Wikipedia not? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a blog, and Wikipedia is not a crystal_ball.
The problem with what you just wrote is that you just reconfirmed that your article fits all of the above. JdH 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
--Rohar1 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I don't disagree with you, pull all 3 pages. I respect the intent of Wikipedia and I originally posted the content in response to the prior art postings, but I don't think any of them have any place in an encyclopedia. I might have some grounds for an entry for the energytower.org project, but not the design of the system. If we can get to the prototype stage I will consider re-posting the article on the bi-directional tower, but until then it's all just theory, free advertising and "soapbox" and shouldn't be here.
I am not comfortable submitting the other projects for deletion, but I think you are impartial. I honestly respect your effort on this.