Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building,sci.engr.mech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2007-10-08 18:17:58 -0400, Mark Borgerson said:
Getting rid of the disssolved gases in the headspace and as bubbles forming on the sides of the tube is going to be a major headache. Not a headache, an impossibility (they're not really dissolved at that point though) :-) That, and the increase in pressure due to water vapor will make this an oscillating, self-quenching system. It'll require more and more heat as the partial pressures of the non-condensables increases, and the column heights will drop as the pressure goes up, with the diffusion path increasing the whole time. I agree with that part---except for the oscillation part. I think the processes are slow enough and the thermal and physical masses are high enough that the oscillations will be damped out and you will see a slow change to equilibrium with little or no overshoot. Though I consider this whole discussion impractical, I haven't seen anyone mention that the fresh-water side will be drawn down fairly regularly. And, of course, the sea water side will be replenished from time to time. Suck hard enough on the fresh-water side and you get even better "vacuum" at the top. (Dissolved gasses are likely to be a problem, though.) Cool the fresh-water side and water vapor will condense there -- the whole point of the exercise. Thinking only momentarily on a problem that I have little interest in... if the fresh-water side is evacuated to the point that the salt-water side is slightly below the top, every once in a while (or perhaps often), the fresh-water side will be empty and only the previously-dissolved gasses evacuated. The required evacuation pumps and one-way valves sound like the problem at the moment. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building,sci.engr.mech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jere Lull wrote:
On 2007-10-08 18:17:58 -0400, Mark Borgerson said: snip Though I consider this whole discussion impractical, I don't know that I'd call the *discussion* impractical; the device certainly. Kind of the point of the discussion. I haven't seen anyone mention that the fresh-water side will be drawn down fairly regularly. And, of course, the sea water side will be replenished from time to time. Suck hard enough on the fresh-water side and you get even better "vacuum" at the top. (Dissolved gasses are likely to be a problem, though.) Cool the fresh-water side and water vapor will condense there -- the whole point of the exercise. Thinking only momentarily on a problem that I have little interest in... if the fresh-water side is evacuated to the point that the salt-water side is slightly below the top, every once in a while (or perhaps often), the fresh-water side will be empty and only the previously-dissolved gasses evacuated. The required evacuation pumps and one-way valves sound like the problem at the moment. The whole exercise was to get a passive system. If you're going to add a vacuum pump, then you just provide continuous evacuation on the freshwater side, using a demister that drains into the freshwater pool, to separate the water vapor from the non-condensables. But if you accept the need for a pump, why use this rather byzantine approach at all? Keith Hughes |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building,sci.engr.mech
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:08:51 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote: he whole exercise was to get a passive system. If you're going to add a vacuum pump, then you just provide continuous evacuation on the freshwater side, using a demister that drains into the freshwater pool, to separate the water vapor from the non-condensables. But if you accept the need for a pump, why use this rather byzantine approach at all? The whole idea here seems ridiculous. This is nothing but a solar still. Reducing the boiling point is not necessary. All the energy absorbed, or nearly, will evaporate water. The limiting factor is the energy input. There is no benefit to making a modest capacity still thirty feet tall, and skinny. Make it short and fat and save material and weight. Did anyone mention weight aloft and windage? The hot side of the skinny job will be well cooled by the surrounding air. Casady |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Internal Fiberglass potable water tank repair | Boat Building | |||
Salt Water/Fresh Water | General | |||
Is 5200 or Sikaflex ok in potable water tanks | Cruising | |||
Is 5200 or Sikaflex ok in potable water tanks - YES | Boat Building | |||
Fresh-water flushing a raw water system? | Cruising |