makes no sense to me
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 20 Jun 2010 12:32 On Jun 20, 1:16 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > Kevin Costner is going to centrifuge the Gulf of Mexico at 200 GPM? It is 200 GPM times N of the water taken up from the slick. It is a very effective way to reduce the total volume of what is scooped up to be only the oil part. > > http://www.ots.org/v20.php > > (somebody should do the math on that) > > John
From: John Larkin on 20 Jun 2010 13:53 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >On Jun 20, 1:16 am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> Kevin Costner is going to centrifuge the Gulf of Mexico at 200 GPM? > >It is 200 GPM times N of the water taken up from the slick. It is a >very >effective way to reduce the total volume of what is scooped up to be >only the oil part. > Three numbers: 200 GPM. One barge holds almost half a million gallons. $20 million. That's a lot of money to design a centrifuge. One square mile of gulf, 1" deep, is about 18 million gallons. $175 million. What it cost to make Waterworld. "After bringing some disappointing numbers in the U.S., the film was nominated for 4 Razzie Awards including Worst Picture, Worst Actor (Kevin Costner) and Worst Director, with Dennis Hopper winning the award as Worst Supporting Actor." Imagine: a mammal with gills. John
From: Archimedes' Lever on 20 Jun 2010 14:25 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >On Jun 20, 1:16 am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> Kevin Costner is going to centrifuge the Gulf of Mexico at 200 GPM? > >It is 200 GPM times N of the water taken up from the slick. It is a >very >effective way to reduce the total volume of what is scooped up to be >only the oil part. > Wrong. It doen't play volumetrically into what is being scooped up at all. It plays into POST processing what GOT scooped up. It has to be hauled onto the barge, before it can be processed into the barge's holding tank(s). It does not change the scooping process, but only reduces the volume of water in the tanks, so that it can be replaced with only that 'scoopage' that we are looking to keep scooped.
From: Perenis on 20 Jun 2010 14:32 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:59:49 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >I don't think anything would cut through the stench of ripe sewer. Perhaps that is why you go through life breathing through your nose. You wouldn't want to be jailed for murdering anyone with your breath stench. I could post my address, and still smell you coming from a mile away.
From: dagmargoodboat on 20 Jun 2010 14:56
On Jun 20, 1:53 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET > > <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >On Jun 20, 1:16 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> Kevin Costner is going to centrifuge the Gulf of Mexico at 200 GPM? > > >It is 200 GPM times N of the water taken up from the slick. It is a > >very > >effective way to reduce the total volume of what is scooped up to be > >only the oil part. > > Three numbers: > > 200 GPM. One barge holds almost half a million gallons. 200 GPM = marketing-speak--the literature reads "up to," "as much as," and "peak." > $20 million. That's a lot of money to design a centrifuge. That's just Costner's share; we don't know about others. We just know that movie stars are really, really good with money. > One square > mile of gulf, 1" deep, is about 18 million gallons. > > $175 million. What it cost to make Waterworld. > > "After bringing some disappointing numbers in the U.S., the film was > nominated for 4 Razzie Awards including Worst Picture, Worst Actor > (Kevin Costner) and Worst Director, with Dennis Hopper winning the > award as Worst Supporting Actor." > > Imagine: a mammal with gills. Yum. James |