If a watermill like picrel floats on a river and creates energy by having absorbing the force of the current into its blades does that slow down the flow of the current?If yes could you apply them to avoid fast flowing rivers washing through their beds?If no could you put endless amounts of them into any river and have your power output limited only by the length of the river?By that same thought could you place many dams behind one another as long as the water keeps flowing downhill and magnify the power output?
if you put big rocks in a river what happens?
>>16135757Water flows around them but quicker
>>16135755>does that slow down the flow of the current?The energy has to come from somewhere. >could you place many dams behind one anotherYes.>endless amountsPut enough of them in a row, and they will function like an impassable dam, and the water upstream will find another way.
The idea of the mill is to pick up some of the kinetic energy of the water to drive a generator. So yes, it slows the water down.
look up a tesla valve
Do wind turbines slow down the wind?
>>16135856yes they do
>>16135856they do create a wake of turbulent air, but as to whether they decreases the power of turbines if they're all in a row "there is significant uncertainty"
>>16135755>>If no could you put endless amounts of them into any river and have your power output limited only by the length of the river?The energy in a river is limited by the flow rate and vertical drop, not the length. How much water drops how far are the relevant factors.
>>16136196to me it looks like they are messing with the position of water vapor in the air current, but the air itself is not turbulent that way. it can't have such a long stream of fucking turbulent air, it should settle/mix, but water vapor seems to be lifted or something
>>16135755You can either build two dams one at the end of the stream and one in equal distance to the end and the source or you can build one dam at the end of it alone. Physically, it has no effect and you can not extract more energy from building more dams. The reason that the conservation of energy, which is a consequence of the conservative nature of the gravitational force. If you built two dams, what happen is that you'd lower the kinetic energy of the water and it'd flow more slowly.>>16135757This is not a good analogy. Because the rocks are not turbines, which extract the energy from the stream via engines. They're carried along the stream and - due to conservation of momentum - do neither reduce nor increase the energy of the water.
>>16136363Exactly what i meant, so as long as it just flows downhill you can put in endless amounts
>>16136379One dam at the end will extract more, as it makes some of the rain fall on top of it, instead of falling to what would be its bottom.
>>16135755>If yes could you apply them to avoid fast flowing rivers washing through their beds?yes, and yes>>16135757reported for extremely low quality (iq)
>>16136379So would also a floating mill slow down the current?Would the speed of the current not be determined in the steepness of the river bed? There is a case here in my home where the river was straightened which led to it flowing more rapidly and washing through its bed, once it will be washed through the water would just sink in the ground, the river cease to exist and the surrounding land turn into a swamp, their solution now is to renaturalize it by digging a more meandering river bed for it, but could you slow it down with a floating water mill?
>>16137048There's only so much power in the river, so cramming in infinite turbines or water wheels doesn't give you infinite power.
>>16135755>does that slow down the flow of the currentin a very small amount, practically negligible.
>>16135755no. this is the one instance in physics were energy is created
