h a l f b a k e r yYou could have thought of that.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This is a heat-powered means to cool one's home, with no moving parts.
There's a boiler, an evaporator, and a condenser.
Liquid water from the condenser passes through an ejector, where it draws in low pressure steam from the evaporator. The resulting mix of gas and liquid goes into a gas/liquid
separator.
Some steam from the boiler goes into an ejector, and moves the steam from the separator back into the condenser.
Some steam from the boiler goes into a steam injector (not to be confused with a steam ejector), where it's used to move some of the water from the separator back into the boiler.
Last but not least, the rest of the water from the separator goes into the evaporator.
Einstein-Szilard refrigerator
http://en.wikipedia...nstein_refrigerator
"no moving parts and requires only a heat source to operate" [8th of 7, Mar 25 2010]
Steam Injector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injector
For moving low pressure water into a high pressure boiler, using steam from said boiler [goldbb, Mar 29 2010]
Ejector Cycle Refrigeration
http://www.denso-eu...14590000000001.aspx
High-ish pressure liquid from the condensor sucks steam from the evaporator. [goldbb, Mar 29 2010]
Ejector Refrigeration Cycle (different cycle from above)
http://www.seas.gwu...rRefrigeration.html
Steam from boiler moves steam from evaporator into the condenser [goldbb, Mar 29 2010]
[link]
|
| |
not as efficient as the Salazar/Einstein cooler that operates by the same principal but uses ammonia/ammonium. Propane powered and found in almost every RV with a refrigerator. |
|
| |
The concept is baked but the efficiency is so low that almost any heat engine powering a compressor type condenser is more efficient. |
|
| |
We think you mean "Einstein-Szilard" (q.v.) |
|
| |
We submit that this idea is Baked and Widely Known To Exist. |
|
| |
By the way, [goldbb], if this is a genuinely original idea on your behalf, it's actually pretty impressive. Your grasp of thermodynamics is definitely improving. |
|
| |
there i go, mixing up my names again, it is Szilard. |
|
| |
//if this is a genuinely original idea on your behalf// |
|
| |
It's unlikely to be "on his behalf" - unless somebody posted
the idea for him. It might, however, be "in his part". |
|
| |
// somebody posted the idea for him // |
|
| |
Exactly. The keepers are getting better at interpreting his sign language. |
|
| |
Well, none of the separate parts are original [links], but I don't think that anyone has put all three technologies together before. |
|
| |
Incidentally, it occurs to me that there's an alternative arrangement for the components: |
|
| |
First, the injector moves water from the condenser to the boiler. |
|
| |
The overflow water from the injector moves through the first ejector, sucking steam from the evaporator, and moving it into the separator. |
|
| |
All of the liquid from the separator goes into the evaporator. |
|
| |
The steam from the separator is transferred into the condenser by the second ejector, which is powered by steam from the boiler. |
|
| |
I would much appreciate it if anyone could suggest which arrangement is likely to be more thermodynamically efficient. |
|
| |
I'm not sure I follow it exactly but the concept of using a steam ejector to cool by producing a vacuum is commonly used in industry when temperatures are required below what a cooling tower can provide. But these usually vent to atmosphere (the advantage is in capital cost not efficiency). The normal procedure is to whap an ejector on the top of a sufficiently vacuum rated tank. |
|
| |