Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Flexme: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Michael 08:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flexme

hello - i am new, my name is flexme ... who can read this?

ps you can just call me flex if you like, i would have used that(my) name but it was taken.--Flexme 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis of energy extraction of solar updraft tower in the tower

The dry adiabatic lapse rate is about 10C per km. For simplicity lets assume dry air. Lets assume the environmental lapse rate average of 6.5C per km applies (this does vary with the local environment).

At height h, the temperature differential between inside the tower air and outside air will be T(h) = A-10h+6.5h where A is the ambient temperature of the greenhouse A.

Idealistic height,I for 100% energy extraction is achieved when the tower exit air is about the same temperature as the atmosphere at that height. This is when 0 = A +(6.5-10)h and so I= A/3.5. For A=20C, I=20/3.5 = 5.71 km.

Example of a 1km tall chimney Lets assume A=20c. the air going up a 1km chimney will become 10C cooler via the dry adiabatic lapse rate's effect. The air 1 km up will also be 6.5c cooler than the ground level air, and so the chimney air will still be 20-10+6.5=16.5C warmer than the local air.

This 1 km tall tower would only be 17.5% of the height of an idealistic tower, but that does not mean it will only extract 17.5% of the energy.

To see the suction effect S at the base of a tower of height h, we can integrate T with respect to h (I do not see this as an standard SI quantity, just my little creation so that we can see the effect of tower height).

S(h,A) = (A-3.5h/2)h =h((A-1.75h)

For a tower using a greenhouse of heat A: for a 0.4km tower S=7.3, for a 1 km high tower S= 18.25, for a 5.7 km tower S is about 57.

The extraction percentage for tower height h, with a greenhouse A above ambient can be seen as: E(h,A)= 100S(h,A)/S(I,A) = 100S(h,A)/S(A/3.5,A) = 700h(A-1.75h)A^-2.

If A=20C, then E=1.75h(20-1.75h), the 0.4 km high tower gives about 13.5% extraction of energy from the warm air. The 1 km high tower gives about 32% extraction of energy from the warm air.--Flexme 02:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humid air

If air which is fully saturated goes up the tower then something interesting happens. The analysis above would be similar except using the moist adiabatic lapse rate, T(h)=T(h) = A-5h+6.5h=A+1.5h .... Lots of suction is generated, and there would then be no limit to the height of the structure - truly bigger is better with humid air! (until the 7 km limit where the atmosphere temperature gradient changes). It seems the sun's energy would be used far away from the tower to convert water liquid to gas, then the tower triggers release of that energy inside the tower.

However this scenario seems little more than fantasy, because when saturated air is fed into the greenhouse entrance, it is warmed up and loses its saturation.

I am not exactly sure at which stage on its upward path it would become saturated again, but i feel confident that it would be above the height of any realistically viable tower. To stimulate saturation after entry to the greenhouse by spraying water into the greenhouse will only be counterproductive because it will cool the greenhouse down as it evaporates.

Of course as has already been mentioned, the tower does not need to be optimal height, this project is feasible primarily because the collector is so damn cheap to make.

Please do not quote this as the ideas are still only vague in my head. Please do feel free to respond here if you have input.--Flexme 10:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editing style

Hi Flexme. I've been looking at the history of Solar updraft tower and noticed that you make a lot of edits to the same section in quick succession. You can see the effects of your edits with the "Show preview" button, then write a helpful summary of what you intended to change or why in the edit summary. The article at the moment is still quite confused and we need to try to clean it up. Thanks for contributing. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Greetings, Flexme.

As you probably know, there is some debate about the Solar updraft tower article. JdH has asked mediation for this issue from Mediation Cabal. Since you are not for a long time here, I'll explain some details to prevent misunderstanding. The Mediation Cabal is not a sort of court, but rather just help in resolution of disputes by a neutral person who reviews the details of the matter, analyzes them in accordance to policies and actual merit of the approaches, and provides a solution by consensus or compromise. I am the mediator for this case, and suggest you to visit the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12 Solar Updraft Tower, or just the case page, as it will be referred further.

Please take no offense if something JdH wrote is wrong or even actually offensive; I don't think you are an employee of EnviroMission, and explained it to JdH. The Mediation Cabal has no preference towards the case submitter and no separation of roles among involved editors, so you don't need to defend, but rather to discuss the problem and seek compromise. You are equal and on neutral grounds, with the policies being primary in determining the decisions, so all opinions and reasoning are important, just try to be neutral as well, as Wikipedia aims to show both sides of the coin, here both the benefits and shortcomings of Solar Tower technology (and nothing is perfect, so it must have some). Please don't heat up the dispute, as mediation is to help it cool down, isolate the crux of the problem, and resolve it in the best way. And don't take it all too seriously - after all, it's just an article, and we all work towards the same goals. It's better to put it away for a time and avoid making potentially controversial edits to the article until the case is resolved. Just come the the case page and discuss the matter, as for this issue the compromise seems to be easy to find.

-- CP/M 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible compromise for Solar updraft tower

There was proposed a version of article, which appears to be clean of particular bias. I suggest that everyone involved in the mediation reviews it, and writes in the case page what exactly sections he would like to insert or what to remove, with supporting arguments.

That version is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12 Solar Updraft Tower/Version1. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

logging in...?

Hi Flexme,

Welcome to Wikipedia - it's a pity things got heated so early (on the Solar updraft tower article) and I hope this doesn't detract from a positive experience.

Looking at the page history, there's also a lot of edits by someone using Optus Internet - I was wondering if perhaps you were making edits, without realising that you weren't logged in. If so, you may wish to do what I do, to avoid this. Go to preferences, and choose a different skin. Or change the quickbar so it is on a different part of the page. That way, it's obvious straight away whether you are logged in E.g. I use the Cologne Blue skin; my friend who sometimes uses the same computer likes the same skin, but has the quickbar on the right hand side.

Hope that's helpful. --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 03:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the tip ... it is done:) hopefully i will not forget in the future. .... i also did lots of edits before i ever made an account ... in hindsight that is an error ... as for the controversy, well it makes it all the more exciting, and hopefully means that we will get it all the more right!--Flexme 03:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re "in hindsight that is an error" - not really. Anonymous editing is deliberately allowed because it makes it easier to get involved. And it's great that you did get involved.

btw, I made a comment on the mediation page - not sure if I understood your point, but I made a suggestion about types of material and where to incorporate them.

Re the name of the article, please remember that various sides of the issue were considered recently and at least some of the changes that were made were a definite improvement (e.g. solar chimney now refers to the passive solar architectural feature, rather than the energy plant). If you want to reopen the debate, it's probably best to do so in a new topic heading - but don't be too dismissive of changes made by other editors. One option would be to have a disambiguation page, linking to, say, Solar tower (energy plant) and Solar tower (astronomy). As I understand it, "solar tower" until very recently was used to refer to the astronomical observation tower, so there's a strong case that Solar tower should not lead directly to a different topic than this. Well, now I've written all that, I'll propose this solution myself. --Singkong2005 ^t_c 07:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Hi Flexme. You said...

SingKong ... this issue of quoting sources giving reliablilty of information ... it seems sensible at first ... yet it is wildly out of control ... check out the comment on the updraft page where it is said to be an expensive way to produce windpower (it might be expensive , but this is NOT the way to show it) ... this is simply a website quoting the media who quote someone's offhand comment - possibly out of context ... this is not reliable! Or another ... the floating chimney, as jdh saw it was totally misguided (though it may start a similar but sensible design in sci fi novels) Similarly, if i was to "publish" my results of my analysis that is at present on my talk page and in the tower discussion page on ANY other website, even on my own yahoo freesite, then my results would suddenly become verifiable!!!!!! this is out of control. i read wikipedia a lot and find it a wonderful source of info, i had no idea about this shambles behind the scenes. when i first started editting i assumed that wikipedia itself was a nice central location to bring my ideas so they could be verified in some sense, but it seems that if you feel you know something then in fact you are best off going ANYWHERE other than wikipedia!? bizzarre!--Flexme 10:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the frustration - I had a similar reaction. But keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia written by many people, and it's the concept and practice of verifiability that stops it becoming a shambles. This can be quite frustrating for someone who knows their material without necessarily having sources at their fingertips - however, I do believe it's essential.

I met a guy in Nimbin a few months ago, who complained that he'd edited Wikipedia 4 times, and had been reverted each time. He was putting in his own ideas... but he was in a very different category to you. This guy appeared to be mentally ill and believed in all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories. Now, if there is no test of verifiability, it can make things impossible for other editors, as it may not be obvious, from looking at the article and history page, which editor is a genius, which one has a PhD in solar power generation, and which one has been getting their ideas from conspiracy rags and voices in their head. (Not to be harsh to the mentally ill - but you see that it's a problem.) To demand a level of expertise of editors would be to drastically restrict the effectiveness of Wikipedia, and cause endless arguments about who is best qualified. Using the principle of verifiability, however, makes it much easier to maintain reliable articles.

I should add - verifiability doesn't mean you must have a source before adding something. However, it must be something that can be verified, and it is hoped a source will be added later, at least. I sometimes even put a {{fact}} tag (citation needed) after material that I've written myself.

If one person publishes an analysis on their website, that's not necessarily notable, but if editors judge it to be useful and suitable they could include it. As odd as this seems at first, it's better than putting one's ideas directly into Wikipedia, as the source is now very clear to any reader and is open to checking and comparison with other views. Also, being on an external site, the Wikipedia article doesn't automatically have to endorse that view, but can present it as one viewpoint, if that is appropriate.

I suppose one of the keys is that Wikipedia is not trying to be the reservoir of all human knowledge - though it may come closer than anything else to fulfilling that purpose, through extensive linking to other sites and sources.

I've gone on much longer than I planned. Hope that makes sense - feel free to comment or ask further, on my page or on a relevant talk page (e.g. at the Wikipedia:Community Portal. --Singkong2005 ^t_c 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flexme, Wikipedia is not anywhere near as "out of control" as you think. The guideline on Reliable Sources. A Yahoo freesite is never a secondary source, and does not feel like a very reliable primary source, either. I have removed cited paragraphs from other articles where the reference was a rather extreme personal website. The foating chimney papers I was prepared to accept as secondary sources had been published in a reviewed journal or conference. It is perhaps still an issue that all the papers linked from here are conference papers, not journal papers. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See you later and Have a nice time :)

i came to this site to try to learn about the solar tower ... i didn't feel that i learned enough when i first came, but was then stimulated to learn what i wanted to know ... i feel satisfied, and am unlikely to return to editting, at least for quite some time.--Flexme 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you've gone. I hope I wasn't part of the reason. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no you were not, in fact i thank you for your consideration and support, it is more me than anything else ... i have other things demanding my time and energy.Flexme 01:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to respond to an old comment you left on my userpage, and to say that even if the Wikipedia way is sometimes a difficult road, there are good results in the end. I know that if someone looks up Appropriate technology here they'll find a good resource and launching pad, which is hard to find elsewhere. Also wanted to mention Appropedia, which is likely to suit your interests. Anyway, good luck wherever you are (gazes heavenward). --Chriswaterguy talk 14:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]