Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floating Solar Chimney Technology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is typically a vanity article; the only person interested in it is its author. The issue has been covered in a single sentence in Solar updraft tower, and that is probably more attention than it deserves anyway. We have seen a proliferation of "Solar Tower" type articles in the past. Just a few months ago we had 3 almost identical articles Solar Tower, Solar chimney, and Solar Tower Buronga, all of which were riddled with commercialism. Those 3 articles have now been merged into one single article, i.e. Solar updraft tower, which btw still needs a lot of cleaning up as it bears the traces of its torturous past. But these kind of articles keep popping up; another example of that is Vortex engine. I think it is about time to put a stop to it. JdH 13:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless we get proof that this is a notable technology from an independant source. The term gets very few google hits, and similarities in language indicate the same source. The word "innovative" crops up a lot, for instance. Artw 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom unless notability asserted per Artw. --DaveG12345 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with above comments. --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 08:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to solar updraft tower, after removing "innovative" lots of times and wikifying, the last section of this article could be added to that article as an alternative way of building the chimney. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I already put in a single line about it. I wouldn't want to spend more characters on it, because it is one of those hairbrained schemes that wouldn't work. What the author didn't think of is that the Solar chimney is based on the fact that there is a pressure difference between outside and inside the tower; and that pressure difference gets bigger the higher the tower gets. Schlaich actually describes the use of internal bracings (spokes) to strenghten the tower. In short: The tower needs to be pretty sturdy to keep it from collapsing under the pressure difference, and it will therefore be far too heavy to keep it up with balloons. JdH 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it would work is not necessarily the point. It has been published about, so citable references are available, and it is a variation from building a concrete tower.

• All there is is one single article, nothing else. There are no independent confirmations from other investigators. JdH 08:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments about weight and strength could be used to prove that neither a Zeppelin nore a Boeing 747 can fly, too. Those floppy "men" at used car yards are a lightweight tube with air flowing through them. In that case, they are powered by a fan or air compressor, not a solar collector and chimney effect, but they do stay up because of the pressure difference—stability is the issue. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case there is a positive pressure difference; in the case of the solar chimney there is a negative pressure difference. Therefore, an unsupported floppy solar chimney would deflate rather than inflate. JdH 08:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.