Water Based Air Conditioning System

Isn't it amazing that they don't really tell how it works?

Removing humidity from air with a paper filter is a pretty neat trick,,,probably would have to be desiccant infused...then using a evaporative based cooling....I too am skeptical...

Your comment reminded me of something!

I recall that the CAV paper element diesel fuel filters had been treated with a chemical that caused minute water droplets to agglomerate after they had passed through the filter paper and fall to the bottom of the filter bowl (this was their filter/agglomerator).......larger droplets of water had already been removed by the primary filter or water trap.

The way I read this is:

1. they dry the air maybe already cooling the air

2. they add water again, which cools the air further equivalent to an evaporative air conditioning system

3. To achieve lower temperatures of the air they might stage the process

All in all it seems to be evaporative air conditioning with an air dryer cycle.

In Singapore due to the humidity in the air just evaporative AC would be a waste of effort. That's where the air dryer comes in first with water as by-product.

I found this (http://www.airiters.com/2018/01/07/nus-team-develops-water-based-air-conditioner/ - sorry, link no longer available)

I too, would be surprised if it cools as well as they say it does. I would be curious to see what an independent study shows.

I am virtually certain there exists a split air stream in the evaporative end of this thing.

Thus one would have working air, and cooled system air (product). Heat flow is out of the cooled air channel into the working air that is warm, dehumidified, but then is injected with water. In order to evaporate this water, the working air must absorb the heat flow from the product (cooled) air final product.

Note: This system will not produce much water at all for hot, nearly dry air, since the water mass in the air mass is much less than hot, humid air.

My modification of this system to include very slight compression of the incoming air, this difficulty of not producing much water can be alleviated somewhat at a higher energy cost. Note also that some of the produced water must be consumed downstream in the evaporating working air section.

Why worry about the laws of thermodynamics!!!

It will all come out in the wash (or water)........maybe the water is hot enough to make a cup of coffee???

That seemed like a sticking point for me too.

I don't think you need to worry about getting a ticket for breaking those laws. You try to break them, and you will be financially broke, I suspect.

There is only one colder than ambient air stream out from this unit. The heat is temperature neutral used to evaporate water. The energy is stored as latent heat and released once the water condenses again.

There is no problem with their statement. If you just look at the second stage of the process.

Where the condensing heat from the drying goes is everyones guess.

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Spam: This post was deleted because it contained advertising outside the Commercial Space forum. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ about advertising.

I read the article, and I am impressed. It does represent an advance everywhere there is a lot of hot air, with reasonably high humidity present in this ambient air.

The trick is the use of a membrane that is selective to water vapor. I think they may be using what are called Pervaporation membrane. The driving force will be a pressure differential, so perhaps they are minimally compressing ambient air to drive water vapor through, compression of the water vapor further (use of suction on the back side of membrane should assist), then use of a bypass ambient flow of air through a heat exchanger should result in cooling of the warmed water vapor under pressure, and can also be used as pre-cooling of the compressed ambient stream (downstream side of the membrane contactor). Expansion of the pre-cooled de-humidified air is second cooling step, condensed water vapor is collected, a portion of which is injected back into 2nd step cooled air, to reach dew point.

Net results: cold air product, and water product (essentially free of bacteria if equipment is maintained in a clean state, but may require minimal biocidal treatment with ozone or chlorine to maintain a drinkable state.

The fact it still uses 60% of the energy of a VCC air conditioner tells me this does require some minimal compression (energy consumption). It is a boon.

"It does represent an advance everywhere there is a lot of hot air........."

Probably work very well in Donald "Duck's" office.........on second thoughts, the unit would probably be that overloaded, it would go into "self destruct" mode!!

What does your PM say about it, Mr. Rumpty Tumpty man.

I don't think the Australian PM has much to say about anything........I think he has foot and mouth disease.........every time he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it.

I have very, very little to do with politics............I think that no matter where you go - they are all "tarred with the same brush".......they are there for their own egotistical aims, and for what THEY can get out of the system.......to hell with all the "plebs" is their motto once they get in power......"what can I do for ME"

01Feb2018

Hi there Mr. Stewart. So sorry for joining your discussions this late. You mentioned that the energy consumption of a VCC-comparable water-based air-conditioner is about 40% lower. If the claim of the researchers in Singapore is, more or less true, that they can lower the cooled air down to 18 degrees, this is a very notable research indeed which in itself is, I think, commercially viable. But I noticed that among the discussions, pros and cons, nobody was mentioning the advantages of using inverters in VCC's. Inverters are fairly new in the commercially available air conditioners. But users and manufacturers of VCCs will attest to the substantial reduction in electric consumption. So VCC with inverters against evaporative cooling? Where do we stand now?

When I posted this novel system, I thought about several things :

A. Will a manufacturer or industry group purchase the patent to this idea and it will be hidden away the same way the oil / auto industry has or had (?) done to the more efficient fuel control system.

B. How will the freon based air conditioning gas supplier's and freon usage equipment manufacturing / spare parts industry react to a counterpoint system.

C. Could a solar powered peltier module be attached to the output side.

D. Where would ( geographically ) this system have the highest efficiency ratio.

A....hahaha,,, shirley you can't be serious?

B....cart before the horse

C....Yes...

D...Typically evaporative cooling systems work best in low humidity climate....

This particular system relies on the water mass to air mass ratio. It needs a humid, or moderately humid site.

If it's too dry for the dehumidifier to function, you can bypass that stage and supply water to run it as a swamp cooler...

I thought this WAS a swamp cooler, just with a extra bit attached to make it look futuristic, like adding rings to gun barrels and clothing.

(was going to add a Futurama 'Rings are stupid" pic, but couldn't find one that wasn't too racy.)

NO. On the other hand, Volkswagen Bug from 1947, and a 2018 Jaguar are both "automobiles".

Even that is a poor comparison. This is a new technique involving pervaporation membranes. These allow water to pass through, with virtually none of the air molecules passing through.

I agree. This last summer in Las Vegas turned out to be one that was higher in humidity than the several summers prior. I ended up using my HVAC a LOT more due to the fact that the Evap. cooler was basically humidifying the house to about 60% humidity. I was wiping water condensation off the inside of my windows one day I left the E.C. on and went to work to come home to a "Swamp house".

Answers according to my humble (or not so humble) opinions:

A. Given the regulatory trend with respect to the HVAC industry, I should think this novel approach would be welcome, and power companies might even promote it, simply because this can have a big impact on peak demand.

B. The OEM companies, and the chemical manufacturers that produce refrigerant gases will continue to have a robust market for quite some time, and there are applications that this new technique cannot be the stand-alone product. Doing this in conjunction with VCC, for example, would allow having a wider control band, or better refrigeration and cold storage energy performance.

C. You could attach a solar, wind-powered, nuclear, or fossil fuel powered Peltier module to enhance final temperature if you wished to, clearly at a wider cost.

D. Site selection for this HVAC technology will be not all that restrictive, but I expect hot coastal areas where there is significant humidity to be the most pertinent. A system such as this could conceivably be installed as much for water production from humidity as for cooling, but it all depends on average water vapor mass in the air.

Hot, humid is best, warm, humid is OK, cold, humid is of no use.

Hot, dry might work, or might not work at all, depending on the ratio of water mass to air mass, warm, dry will not work, and cold, dry will not work.

Funny thing is, if one looks at large population centers of the world about 95% of the population will fit into the hot, humid, or the warm, humid categories, so the size of market share for this technology is vast.

I grew up when there was no AC in my early childhood...It was miserable in the Summer and most of the time was spent in the sprinkler, or pool, or beach....When air conditioners first came out they were put in theaters and shopping stores and restaurants, all which would have a sign out front enticing people to come into the nice cool environment they were providing....and it worked....if you were fortunate enough to have AC in your car, that's where you spent a lot of time....People suffered, I don't forget....

I moved from Colorado to California's central valley as a teenager (we moved in August, and had only an evaporative cooler on the car). One summer in that valley was all I could take! The next summer I got a job washing dishes at a YMCA camp located at 6500 feet altitude. $10 a week plus room and board and comfortable was WAY better than the $40 a week and miserable down in the valley. I continued with other jobs at that camp for several summers, and never regretted it!

When I bought the house I still live in, one of the main selling points was that it had A/C. This is the 51st year of operation for that Carrier (including 3 years prior to my purchase), and it still works just fine! I've spent an average of $4 per year in maintenance, including one refill of freon, around 20 years ago.

Obviously I've spent a whole lot more on energy to run it!

I can just guess at the SEER rating of a 54 year old Carrier, but I am guessing somewhere around 6.

Now they cannot market ones less than about 13, I think.

I'm quite aware of that, but for my expected lifetime, it's cheaper to keep the old one. If it should fail, rest assured that I will do some research, and replace it with the highest efficiency unit available at a reasonable cost.

My Aunt and Uncle built their house, on the Florida Treasure Coast, in the early 70s. It has no central A/C or heat. They don't even have window shaker A/C units. Just ceiling fans, shady trees and open windows and a big fireplace (for the one or two nights a year, it actually gets cold ;-) Amazingly enough, the house is tolerable inside, even on the hottest days, it seems.

Ok, yes, good thoughts, but for some elderly, they will die sooner without A/C.

Some climates are strictly not for the weak.

I would say that given X amount of energy expended to operate VCC systems worldwide (and it is a very significant fraction of peak load in the summer), saving 40% is essentially saving 30% of the entire energy bill during the hot months.

IF they decide to also configure this system to introduce humidity to dry cold air in the winter, heating bills will also be cut slightly, due to the higher comfort factor at 35-40% humidity at 23.3 °C, as compared to the same temperature at 15-20% humidity. The humidity introduced also increases the heat capacity of the air compared to low humidity air, thus the room temperatures will not tend to swing as quickly or as wildly as they do with dry room air.

Admittedly, finding the water to run this on the winter as a humidifier, is going to be tricky, unless external source is already present. Also, if any part of the working air contains a lot of moisture and is below the freezing point, that might be a real challenge as per icing up conditions.

Schools are proven to function better when the temperature and humidity are controlled. So do office complexes. So do hospitals.

We are not ever going to stuff the genies we have now back into the lamp, so get used to the modern conveniences, and be thankful we do have them.

Condensing or evaporating 15 liters of water in 20 hours represents about 30,000 Btu, or 1500 Btu/h, which is a really small amount of air conditioning. If scaled up to the size of a house, it might even be able to cool a house.

Since that post has gotten at least one GA, I know it's being read, so I'll provide some help for those who may not catch all the meanings.

SOP - Standard Operating Procedure

TLA - Three Letter Acronym

PNE - Parenthetical Note Explanation (as demonstrated here, contrast with footnotes, which I normally use so the explanations, sources, jokes, etc. do not break up the flow of the writing)

SVA - Standard Viewing Audience

FUBAR - Fouled⁽¹⁾ Up Beyond All Recognition

SNAFU - Situation normal; All Fouled⁽¹⁾ Up

Notes:

1. As you may know, I prefer to avoid crude language or vulgarities in public forums. We all know those words anyway, it's not expanding anyone's vocabulary.

Footnote 1. is pure poppycock! I read your vulgar mind between the lines all the time!

ROFLMAO!

I will have you to know all those words are in the crocodilian vocabulary reader.

Ah, but I don't SAY the naughty words, I just make you THINK them.

Thanks. Good job!

I prefer the PNE to the footnote, as long as it is reasonably short, especially when viewing the footnote requires scrolling to a currently not visible section of the page, or worse, to a different page.

I prefer to avoid crude language or vulgarities in all forums, public or private.

If its short, a parenthetical note doesn't break the flow, but if it's long, and especially if it requires notes of its own⁽¹⁾, then putting it in a footnote makes more sense than sending a paragraph off on a tangent mid-sentence.

Notes:

1. The famed author, Terry Pratchett, was rather famous for stacking footnotes in his Discworld stories, sometimes to provide a bit of 'worldbuilding' information⁽²⁾, other times to squeeze in a joke that fits the scenario, but would break the flow and metre of a back and forth conversation⁽³⁾ in the pages.
2. As in "Backstory about the world," there are many stories and Stories⁽⁴⁾ on and about Discworld, and Mr. Pratched did not have enough time to tell us all of them.
3. As an example, I will borrow from another author, the late⁽⁵⁾ Douglas Adams: "How many lifeboats are there?" "None." "You counted?" "Twice."
4. The difference between the two, as explained in the books, is that a small-s story is simply a tale, a big-S Story is a semi-scentient ribbon of space-time, a series of events that, once started, will continue to its end. This is the reason that, whenever you drop a house on top of a witch, that short people will gather around the building to sing, and why, when a complete neophyte sits at a card table populated by seasoned card sharks and says, "So how's this game played again?" that neophyte will clean out the sharks. It's why million-to-one-odds fall in the Hero's favor nine times out of ten. Big-S Stories Want To Be Told.
5. I can't help using that line without remembering a dialogue between two of Adams' characters: "Come along, or you'll be late." "Late for what?" "Late as in the late Dentarthurdent. It's a threat, you see, I'm not very good at them."

This last one being more footnote than post¹.

Notes:

1. Really?

Pratchett himself had some pages that were over 50% footnote.

I was attempting the trope of Self-Demonstrating Article.

that is why they invented asterisks. So one like me can mask his vulgarity.

I can recall........many, many moons ago, on the HMAS "Melbourne," (an an aircraft carrier of infamy in the RAN), we had among other things a steam, vacuum refrigeration system, WHEN it worked it did a reasonable job........but, unfortunately, from what I remember.........that wasn't very often!.........one thing though, it fitted in nicely with the rest of the engineering section of the ship.

It was typical in those days for the RAN, to purchase from the British Royal Navy, ships that were surplus to their requirements, or so outdated, that they were no use to man nor beast. The "Melbourne" was of wartime construction, designed as a light fleet carrier for the Murmansk run, North of Russia........and here we were operating it the tropics for a large percentage of its life...............I don't think things have changed very much today.......they purchase Spanish ships/designs now.....very successful, NOT!!!

Hence the song: "Leave Her Johnny, Leave Her".

Why don't the Aussies built their own?

You do have our sympathy for having had to endure that.

It appears to me the Brits have a poor opinion of Aussies, especially those in the military, helping the Brits with their spats with the Germans.

Supposedly, the Aussies in government may hold similar degrees of regard for their own service members, it is a pity, and it is a shame on them.

Yes I would certainly have liked to got those "decision makers" down in the engineroom of the "Melbourne" when serving in the tropics, i.e. politicians and Admirals in Naval Staff.........I could have guaranteed that they they would have had a "fun time"

Australia had built many of their own warships, the largest being a fleet replenishment vessel, HMAS Success, of 18 000 tonnes........they were also going to build a sister ship, but, due to cost overruns, (mainly caused by unions-my opinion - officially, problems with the French drawings), so that never eventuated........back in those days the union bosses were mainly "communist sympathisers" or outright communists.

They also built "many" destroyers and frigates in Naval dockyards in Sydney and Melbourne. They were good "boats"

They also built 20"Attack" Class patrol boats in Queensland (an Australian state), designed by Australian Naval "Architects"........that were absolutely USELESS, to the nth degree.......they have of late built some decent patrol boats, I believe!

Some years back they also built the "Collins" Class submarines......and from all that I have heard about them, they were marginally better than the patrol boats.

They are shortly going to build replacement submarines in Australia, with the French, again these will be conventional diesel powered subs......WHY!!- Who knows one would tend to think, that they will be as handy "as a hip pocket in a singlet".......so much for the RAN.

They acquired 2 helicopter landing deck ships from Spain more recently........well I think the less said about them the better........I heard on my "grape vine" (very reliable), that they have all sorts of issues with these "white elephants"

The RAN's most sensible decision was back in the early 60's when they decided to acquire 3 DDG's from the USA........I guess the the reason they went to Spain was cost........and they got "what they paid for"

Sounds like militaries are maintaining their track records.

I remember hearing stories about how the US Army screwed up when they drafted my grandfather. He was a butcher in civilian life, so the Army assigned him to be a COOK. Most of the other butchers, chiefs and restaurateurs were sent to the motor pool to be mechanics, and the engine experts were sent to the mess halls to be cooks.

So that is why Army "stew" tastes like motor oil...just sayin'!

That sounds 'par for course'........it reminded me of engineer officers in the Royal Australian Navy........they had a 'degree' in marine engineering, and then sent into the fleet........no 'hands-on' engineering experience at all.......the result......not good.

A couple of statements from a recent White Paper:

"DDG (c.1960's) ‐ 4,500 tons 20 officers, 313 crew ‐a ratio of 1 officer to 15.65 crew FFG (c.1980's) (fast frigates) ‐ 3,500 tons 26 officers, 195 crew ratio of 1 officer to 7.5 crew. As you can readily see, the ratio of officers to sailors at sea has doubled, but it gets worse: The Armidale Class Patrol Boats ‐ 6 officers, 15 crew ‐ a ratio of 1 officer to 2.5 crew.

Why? The navy officer stream has long lauded the priceless value that highly educat-ednaval officers bring to the navy, yet it cannot provide the people required for specialist positions! Why then, do we supply them with a degree?" AND, get this: - "The navy's seaman officers graduate with an arts degree." nothing like having 'well trained' naval officers........could be the reason why the HMAS Melbourne 't-boned and and sank two 'friendly' destroyers with the combined loss of 176 Australian and American lives.......I, unfortunately, was on the 'Melbourne' in the first of those incidences.........pity they never taught them anything about navigational practices.

Yes. Being at sea, generally required Situational Awareness, and a certain ability to navigate the seas, and avoid collisions with other members of the fleet. Usually, abrupt changes in course are not allowed, except in wartime, wherein the fleet is not in close formation anyway, and certain evasive maneuvers are required, and this means the entire fleet is at GQ/battle stations, and communications are hot between ships.

I am no Naval expert, and I only claim that my father was in "the real man's Navy" between WWI and WWII, a battle cruiser, where they steamed to the Caribbean islands and promptly destroyed an island with their guns, then turned about and steamed back to Newport News. Dad was an Engineman / Fireman First Class. No high-ranking officer was he. No such designation now exists in the U.S. Navy. I guess he ruined it for future generations, LOL.

Born in 1901, he grew up as an orphan in a Masonic Home in Oklahoma, then later joined the Navy. He had the privilege of seeing the first airplane catapulted from the ad-hoc flight deck of a battle ship. Later on, he lived to witness the atomic age, and manned space flight, culminating with the moon landings.

That's not quite true James, when exercising allied navies are training for a war, that many hope will never come, (I am afraid that there are no winners in a war - 'everybody' loses), Therefore they try to simulate as best they can, what they perceive to be, actual warlike conditions. This includes manoeuvring in extremely close quarters at high speed, and RAS (Replenishment at Sea - fuel, stores and/or personnel), etc., etc........they always carry out these types of exercises, as this tends to show up the strengths and weaknesses of all concerned.........if there are weaknesses they work hard to try and overcome them........otherwise it could result in their demise.

OK, but I still somehow (deludedly perhaps) that the U.S. Navy has the good sense to open up the formation if evasive actions are likely (on a war footing, watching for enemy attack). Surely a closer formation will be allowed (for the entire fleet) during peacetime, general cruising conditions, non-exercise conditions. We do so want to avoid collisions between members of the fleet, do we not?

Coordinated maneuvering is one thing, some jerk pulling a Crazy Ivan in his frigate right in from of the carrier is not cool, probably a good cause for courts-martial.

We all know that ship tenders must get in close, and coordinate every move. Calm to moderately heavy seas, best not in heavy seas, so I think.

I guess that depends on the threats likely to be faced, e.g. in a carrier group escort vessels do not want to get too far away - the carrier would be vulnerable to a 'conventional' submarine attack......thinking a little more on this line.......today I think it is a matter of who gets in first...........I was thinking back to the 'Brits' when they went into the Falklands.........one missile strike (Exocet), and pow! One ship gone.

Interesting bit of trivia on that, my brother-in-law worked for nearly 18 hours/day (every day) for 3 months so that British Aerospace could fufill the Argentine order for the missiles - he worked on telemetry - as soon as they got them they went into the Falklands.......I also believe (whisper) that the British ships anti-missile systems were so designed that would not intercept "friendly" missiles.....and of course the Exocet was a friendly missile.

Just another bit of trivia, in Adelaide, South Australia, where I reside it is a 'beautiful summer's day - 43⁰C - and its only 1300, the hottest part of the day is usually between 1500 and 1700 (daylight saving).......one could say ' a tad on the warm side'

Just a tad bit. We made it back into the 20's today, C that is. Was below 0 for all week, just about. C really makes it "feel" colder.

Exocet missile. French design, built by the French, and sold by. Britain is however, listed as a "former operator" of these. I can't believe they would ever allow sales from UK to Argentina! Really? I find that witless, and astounding they would do that in the name of a few £.

All of what you stated is true. The trick is that most submarine fleets in the world are still conventional powered, and cannot keep up with the fleet whilst submerged. This does not mean they could not try "snorkel up" air intake and exhaust operations, and risk it all for the big kill.

"....I can't believe they would ever allow sales from UK to Argentina! Really? I find that witless, and astounding they would do that in the name of a few £."

Yes, what some will do for the 'almighty' dollar! I guess that's how 'little rocket man' got his nukes and missiles.......it certainly is a sad indictment of many of the human race today... especially politicians......I have been 'over' politics for many years now, probably more than I care to remember.

Any how we had a cool change today, certainly refreshing, the top temperature was only 38⁰C...........certainly better than the 44⁰C of yesterday, my car thermometer registered 47⁰C, and it took nearly 10 minutes for air conditioning to 'kick-in' efficiently. It looks as though I will need a coat tomorrow, its only going to be 36⁰C!!!

On the subject of submarines the most effective defences against submarines, is the 'hunter/killer submarines.......well they used to be......not really up-to-date on that.

This is forever true between winter and summer in the land of Northern Lights, and the land "Down Under". If we could build a heat engine between the two, what would it be? A wind turbine?

Make it a BIG one.........energy problem sol - ved!!!!

Unfortunately, Coriolis throws the whole pole-to-pole thing off, as far as wind goes.

dk, let's not get too scientific about these things.......I just thought, that perhaps, we could ignore the earth's rotation.......just for once!!!!

As Spock said........"Beam me up Scotty, the earth sucks"!!!!........this proves that there is no such 'thing' as gravity!!!!

My science teacher in High School told me that saying, and I have been hunting for the big sucking hole in the ground ever since.

OK edit that to read: Pole to Equator pipeline, surely cold air sinketh, whilst the hot riseth. Otherwise methinks the lad protesteth a bit much.

Mr. Coriolis will still interfere, I suspect. It sort of means that on the assumption of a sea level air conduit, (imagine it floating suspended somewhat under the sea).

Let me see: (1) ice freezes on the conduit near the poles, and sinketh it.

OK, now imagine it floating on top of the water.

Let me see: (1) ice freezes on the conduit near the poles, and sinketh it.

I see this challenge as a sinker, not a floater.

(2) on the presumption that icing and sinking could be prevented, suppose that the speed of rotation near the poles is far less than at equator due to the shorter radius to the axis of rotation. Does this mean the air would have to accelerate as it flows in the conduit? Will it be "slung" out the end at a tremendous velocity? Have we discovered a way to harness Earth's rotational energy (and eventually kill us all)?

First and foremost, I do not intend to live in, well lets just say tRump said it best. The third world lifestyle is not one I would aspire to.
I will have a working HVAC unit. thank you.

as for this thing, Hey as long as someone is willing to fund the research, go for it. There is no better teacher than failure and even in failures advances are made.