How to Draw a 5,000 Cubic Meter Vacuum

Thank you for the comments. Can you elaborate on how I could use pressure waves to induce phase change. I understand that both compression and decompression (associated with temperature drop) can cause a phase change. Why do compression waves force the water in vapor form to change phase back to liquid? Also, what are some simple experiments to verify this process? Back to your comments, lower pressure leads to lower temperature not higher temperature. Think about what happens to air temp as you rise up in the atmosphere - pressure goes down and temp. goes down. Air's ability to hold water in the vapor form drops as the air temperature drops, and thus leads to vapor changing phase. As long as I maintain an ADIABATIC DECOMPRESSION then the temperature of the air inside the device will be significantly LOWER than its original ambient temperature. The latent heat of condensation will slowly be recognized as the air mass is brought back to ambient pressure. So as long as the air inside the device is kept in a decompressed state and insulated from external temperatures - that air inside the chamber will remain very cold and the water will remain in a condensed state. I hope that clears things up a little. I look forward to your ideas on simple ways to use compression waves to induce the phase change. Especially if that takes far less energy than decompression.

When you reduce the air pressure, the vapor point of the water goes down, therefore it will vaporize more easily. Like I mentioned in my previous post, you should compress the air and cool it down: this will induce condensation.

How then do you explain Rain? I am using the same process that nature uses to cajole water vapor to condense and then fall from the sky. Nature does not compress the moist air coming off the oceans before it rises up the coastal mountain ranges where the air quickly forms clouds and often drops its moisture in the form of rain. This is a well understood process in atmospheric physics any meteorologist would agree with what I just wrote. Thanks again for your comments and interest in my topic.

Rain occurs when the air is saturated with water. You don't seem to quite understand how cloud formation occurs. Clouds result when moisture condenses out around tiny drifting dust particles in the air due to the low temperatures at the altitudes they form at. Enough of these moist dust particles come together and clouds are formed. As the water droplets continue to grow in size due to increasing condensation, they eventually grow too heavy to stay aloft and fall down to Earth as rain. More specifically, they freeze as snow at the low temperatures present at such high altitudes, drift downwards and melt into rain.

Compressing the air and cooling it down will lower the moisture saturation point of the air, thus bringing about condensation faster. I have actually designed and built such a machine on a smaller scale before. You can do whatever you want and keep pumping in water vapor until it actually condenses out if you don't believe me, but it will take much longer to reach saturation point and the amount of moisture recovered is far lower than if you do what I said.

No DVader1000, that's right for isothermal expansion, but not adiabatic. If the air is expanded isothermally the vapour becomes less saturated i.e. the dewpoint falls. But if the expansion is adiabatic the temperature falls by more than enough to compensate i.e. to below the dewpoint, and water vapour condenses.

Done a calculation based on initial temperature 20°C. Assumed the 1000 and 500 mbar are absolute pressures. Saturated vapour pressure 23.4mbar. Water vapour content 0.017 kg/m³ = 86.4 kg.

After isothermal expansion - relative humidity (obviously) 50%. Actual vapour pressure 0.5*23.4 = 11.7 mbar. Dewpoint 9.3°C (= temperature at which saturated vapour pressure = 11.7 mbar).

Adiabatic expansion - new volume 8203 m³ to give pressure change 1000 to 500 mbar. Temperature -32.6°C. Vapour pressure 0.39 mbar. Water vapour content 0.00035 kg/m³ = 2.9 kg, so 83.5 kg condenses.

Cheers...........Codey

Taking off on J a E's suggestion.have the two chambers sdide by side with a common wall made with a glass partition. Once the second chamber has been pumped down to a low enough pressure, shatter the partition. The sudden decompression with full area opening will reproduce conditions of the cloud chamber nick name refers to.

I have designed and constructed such a device on a small scale before. You should increase the moist air pressure. This will raise the condensation point of the water vapor: however, it will also raise the air temperature within, thus preventing condensation from occuring. You therefore have to cool the air back to ambient temperature or lower as well to achieve large scale condensation.

Hope this helps.

Yes, there was/is a bubble chamber, but your description seems to fit a "cloud chamber" which was much earlier than the bubble chamber I believe.

Hi AE, Is that all you want?........ Not too sure what you mean..................... But if you want to liquidise vapor of a 17.1 metres³ in just a couple of second.......................... That is a pretty tall order. Can I ask why you want or need this done? The 5000 M³ is a pretty exact size/quantity. You will have to move the volume of a cube ~17.1 metres. Dare I say that perhaps the only way may be to use a huge fan blade or a jet engine? I think it will help me and others if you gave your reasons? For instance, why say 5000 M³, rather than 100 M³? Must this machine actually work and make true water vapour to liquid, or if you are producing a special effect, would perhaps dry ice (C 02) do the job? Good luck.

You are correct 5,000 M³ is a pretty precise number. That is the approximate volume of ambient air at a given pressure, temp, and RH that I wish to use as my assumed input for the device. That assumed amount of air volume will yield the minimum amount of water that I wish to achieve.

To answer your question WHY? I want to create water as rapidly as possible with as little input cost as possible. Before anyone points out the obvious concerning the efficiency of reverse osmosis or other filtration technologies, I am focusing on creating water where it is needed NOT where it is found on the surface of the Earth. For example, reverse osmosis is not going to help the developers in Las Vegas continue building. Yes I am also aware that people have commercialized water from air devices by using refridgeration. I am also aware that the military has looked into a mobile water devices based upon desiccants and even using compression to create water as DVader keeps advocating.

I am looking to use the same process that mother nature uses, but I just want to speed it up. If you have a suggestion that works on a smaller scale then please throw it out there for scrutiny. I really appreciate the depth of experience and diversity of thought that this forum provides.

Based on your original conditions, my response was focused on reducing pressure in a large room (drawing a vacuum in 5000 cubic meters).

If you want to make water from ambient air (5000 Cu M per minute/hour/day) then your best shot is to compress it using a pressure blower or whatever to push water molecules closer together (and raise the temperature of the air) then run some cooling medium (tower water, chilled water, refrigerant) through a coil and condense it, OR you could cool the water already made (say about 55F) and spray it into the pressurized air stream to condense the water and return the air to near normal pressures.

Hi AE,

Forgive me for not answering this post sooner, I just did not notice it.

This is the amount of water air holds and what it therefore may be possible to recover.

How much water do you think is in a M³ of air? And so how much do you think is recoverable?

If you could spare the time I would be obliged.

Good luck

This is JUST a suggestion, but I think it will work.

Obviously, your facility will need to be essentially air tight- lots of caulking and seals.

Second, have a set of relatively large "windows"- hinged on top and equipped with air powered expansion gaskets that will be OPEN at the start of the cycle.

Then, inject a large amount of low-pressure steam into the room. The open "windows" will let the steam displace the air as necessary. After the room is "full" turn off the steam.

Next- have the walls "covered" with parallel "coils" of bare metal (aluminum or stainless) tubing that is about 3-4 inches from the wall surface to centerline running between two horizontal headers (SUPPLY near the floor and RETURN near the roof).

Run high quantities of 32F water from an ice storage system through the wall-mounted "coils".

The extremely cold water will quickly condense the steam, drawing a "vacuum" in the space that will not cause any problems and without hurting anyone.

The water from the steam will quickly condense on the tubing and fall to the floor into drain pans, etc.

At the end of the cycle, decompress the seals around the "windows" and open them to return the room to "normal" pressures.

This is just a quick thought- do with it what you will.

What you are contemplating is done commercially on a small scale in a device known as a dewpointer made by Alnor. In order for the process to function reliably, you will need to provide adequate nucleation sites. Before you design your machine, I suggest you read a fun paperback "Clouds in a Glass of Beer" by Craig F. Bohren. You will then understand how God accomplishes this feat, the physics involved, and be in a position to decide if you want to attempt it yourself.

Yes I am familiar with this device. I have not read the book you reference, but my partner has PhD in Atmospheric Physics and conducted research for NASA at a major research university. I will look into the book though. Thanks

I'd like to learn how you make out on this project. My kneejerk reaction is that it is feasible, but will take a huge amount of power to achieve the rapid pressure drop you require. Jet aircraft accomplish this all the time, but use gobs of power doing it.

Good morning AE, from what I've been able to read it seems like you don't actually need the fog so much as the moisture that results from it. Why go to all the trouble of building a huge chamber and expending all of that energy just to produce a fog that you'd still have to capture for it to be useful? Why not just send your water vapor laden airstream through a refrigeration coil to bring it down to around 34 degrees F and wrap out virtually all of the easily available water that way? Then if you have something that needs to be cooled, such as a walkin or office space you can use the cooled air to do that job, If you need the RH lower for cooling an office space you can use a desuperheating coil to warm the air up a little from the waste heat of the condenser coil. To allow for varying dewpoints in the ambient air supply you could use a variable frequency drive to control the fan speed on the incoming air to optomise the yield. If you needed even more control you could also run the compressor on an inverter drive as well to ramp up and down the speed as necessary to work with the conditions at hand. I take it that you are not near an ocean or sea or you'd be interested in a desalinisation machine which I have also become aware of a while back. I happen to be a Certificate Member Specialist in the Refrigeration Service Engineers Society. Please feel free to E-mail me with any further questions.

I think a number of suggestions are missing the point.

Correct me if I am wrong: What you want is to remove remaining water vapor from an air stream that is already (for most intents and purposes) dry.

I.E. starting with air that would exist in a desert or extemely cold climate (therefore dry) extract the remaining moisture from the air in a liquid form without first heating or injecting with steam (no water to make steam with).

And do it on a large scale.

I think you might want to investigate a different track:

I suggest looking at cryogenic gas storage and retrieval systems. (I used to work at a plant that used oxygen and hydrogen stored in a liquid form) The systems use a bank of evaporators to convert gas from liquid back into gaseous form. These evaporaters were always very cold. Water would condense and freeze on them even during the winter in Northern Ohio. (It was kind of weird walking out to the tank farm after a blizzard to read meters with "fog" swirling around my boots. I loved that job!!)

We all know HVAC heat pump systems can do this with relatively humid air (This is why they have defrost cycles to keep coils from freezing up). But for "dry" air:

Think HVAC refrigeration systems on steroids.

Surface temps for evaporators used to turn industrial quantities of liquified gases into a gaseous form get well below the dewpoint of any ambient air warm enough to support human life. Run ambient air across the evaporator coils. The water vapor condenses out on to the evaporator surfaces to be collected. The trick will be keeping the water from freezing while at the same time condensing out and collecting water faster than relatively dry moisture hungry air that you push through the coils can absorb it. (Basically finding the right balance points and holding it as air conditions change)

This might work when combined with an industrial application where it is a once through system that expands the stored gas and then uses it in some other process (like the plant I worked at). But if you need to re-compress the gas back to a cryogenic state, as part of a cycle, energy consumption becomes prohibitively high.

Without partnering with some other process that either uses the expanded gas or that creates excess energy it needs to get rid of, you may have to expend more consumables (liquified gas, energy and or fuel) than the water you retrieve is worth.

Sounds like fun!

I am trying to remove the water from ambient air at what ever the air temp, pressure, humidity level is in the given location that my device is located. If I put the device in Louisiana then it will be hot and humid, in Vegas hot and dry, Michigan cold and humid... Yes I am drying the fluid stream, the fluid is ambient air. I do not want to add anything to the air, that becomes counter productive and adds to the cost of the system. So I am not going to add steam to the air, I am not going to compress the ambient air prior putting it in the device. The only way that this device will work economically is if I follow natures process. As soon as i start to deviate with some of the suggestions made in this discussion stream the costs go up and the economics of the system fall apart. I want to do exactly what nature does, I just want to do it faster.

All I asked this highly knowledgable audience for was advice on efficient ways to draw a large vacuum. For anyone interested the oil and gas industry has already designed a device called "Twister BV". If you google this device you will see that it is a very eligant device with no moving parts that separates water from a natural gas stream. This device is not designed for my purposes, but could be modified to help. I am looking for simple yet eligant solutions for how to create this adiabatic decompression and process a lot of ambient air in a really small amout of time.

Someone must have a clever idea that has not been tried before?!

The ONLY way to remove moisture is to cool the air below its dew point- whatever that temperature is.

However, the process of cooling air enough to remove the moisture is, after you hit dew point temperature, removing the latent heat in the water vapor. At "ambient" temperatures of, say 55F to 95F, the water vapor has a latent heat of 1041 BTU per pound of moisture to 1062 BTU per pound of moisture, increasing as the temperature falls. Call the average latent heat load = 1051.5 BTU per pound of water vapor.

95 F, 40% RH air has a density of 0.071 pounds per cubic feet, an enthalpy of 38.46 BTU per pound, a dew point of 66.9 F and 99.4 grains of moisture per pound of air.

66.9 F, 100% RH air has a density near 0.075 pounds per cubic feet, an enthalpy of 31.54 BTU per pound, a dew point of 66.9 F and 99.4 grains of moisture per pound.

There are 7000 grains of moisture per pound of water, and 8.33 pounds of water per gallon. Therefore, it will take (8.33 x 7000 / 99.4)/0.071, or 8,262 Cubic Feet (or 16.2 Cubic Meters) of air to produce one gallon of water. It will take (8.33 x 7000 / 99.4) pounds of air times (38.46 - 31.54) = 4,059 BTU air cooling load for one gallon of water PLUS (8.33 x 1051.5) = 8,759 BTU to condense a gallon of water for a grand total of 12,818 BTU per gallon produced (or 1.07 tons of cooling for each gallon of water). At 0.6 kW per ton and $0.065 per kWh, each gallon per hour will cost about $0.051 per gallon, which is equivalent to $38.25 per 100 Cubic Feet ot water (CCF). That number is about 30 times more expensive than a typical water delivery system.

The economics do not seem to hold up very well.

"The ONLY way to remove moisture is to cool the air below its dew point- whatever that temperature is."

1) I'm not convinced this is the ONLY way; in fact you don't need to cool the air at all. The most you would have to do is to cool the water molecules in the air (remember Dalton's law) and I'm not even sure you would need to do that.

2) Please show how 8,262 Cubic Feet = 16.2 Cubic Meters)

Hi AE

"Someone must have a clever idea that has not been tried before?!"

I have been following this thread for a while and found it encouraging to see that others are getting their heads around this. I have the machine you are looking for but I am afraid you will have to wait a while before I can tell you about all the in's and out's. What I can tell you is that it's 4999.999 times smaller than you require.

Why am I telling you this? So that you keep searching for a solution just as I did, for years.

I'll give you a hint though: Get your self 2 transparent glass or plastic spheres, one larger than the other and play with them for a while. Maybe even a bit longer until others think you have gone nuts when you started drawing circles or other shapes on them. They'll know you lost it when you start adding other things like valves and bearings. Like I said just a hint.

My miniature version not only creates water but other desirables as well, which I was after in the first place. This aspect/potential gave me the drive to solve the same problem you are trying to solve, just on a different level. It has really been solved by now, at least for me.

If in doubt, start small, I did. Good luck with it all,

Ky.

This comment was totally unhelpful. I asked for advice and suggestions on how to accomplish a simple problem. What is not helpful, is suggesions that you have already solved this problem with out any proof of your accomplishments. I have thought about this problem from a multitude of angles and have filed a patent application based upon a strong defensable position. I know who has already filed for patent protection prior to myself at this point. I have asked this audience of experts thier opion on this topic to determine if their is some untried solution. I find it totally uncredible to claim to have solved a problem that I hint at in this thread. I will waste NO time in worrying about your claim of success at this point. Good luck, the the race is long and only the swift and sure footed will win in the end.

If you don't have a legitimate response to my request then don't respond to this note. Good luck in your project, you will need it if you are planning on competing in the commercial market place.

Hi AE,

I wish you luck.

I must disagree with your statement of ".......how to accomplish a simple problem".

If it was that simple and or straightforward a way to recover water I think there would have been a more united agreement on how to go about the job?

I to and I am sure several others here have spent time thinking of this, and all the answers I come up with involve a lot of effort and considerable machine power.

Can I suggest that it may not be a very good idea put someone down, if only slightly, when they say they have a similar invention or idea. Small scale 'ideas' are undiscovered inventions. Inventions are small scale ideas that can become truly monumental successes on a larger scale. For instance, the JET Engine was originally invented using a tin can.

If someone has said they know how to do this, perhaps it would, may I suggest, be more useful to both, and dare I say certainly more useful for you to discuss this with them, rather than saying what you did. I know you were gracious, but I happen to know the member you sent your last post to, has several inventive irons in the fire. So maybe a private PM discussion between the two of you would make more sense? Just a suggestion.

Good luck to you.

There is a solution as you describe your goal but you cannot apply for a patent since it was applied already a couple of 1000 years ago.

Imagine stones put on each other with space in between. During the day hot air enters the spaces. At night stones and air are colder and water condenses.

You could imagine a structure which could have same properties of course optimized with modern materials but using same principle: entrap hot air during the day and cool it at night thus obtaining a water condensation. Especially in hot regions near to see or lake or ocean it will be more productive.

This could be an old idea modernized! If you want to discuss in details use private channel.

May I add a short comment: the expansion will never be adiabatic since the water vapour is intimately mixed with air and the latent heat will warm as well air as water and remaining water vapour. Thus the expansion will be poly-tropic with an exponent between 1.4 and 1 depending on the degree of humidity at the start.

Hi ky,

I agree with pretty much all you say.

GA to you Sir.

Hi bb

Not sure if it is worth a GA. I could have been more diplomatic and hope I have not discouraged any one from following a vision. We will see what comes out of it if followed through.

Hope all goes well, Ky.

Hi ky,

The GA was given because the OP is on cloud nine at the moment, (perhaps), and you told him a few home truths about what he had written and the way he had written his posts. We know nothing of him and he is not giving much personal details out, is he?

The detail you picked up on was simply because he had metaphorically given you a slap with the back of his hand as he passed? I say he, I should say the OP has, as you pointed out a very crooked idea of looking at what the OP may see as an ideal and it will be that way whatever? As you said with regard to the Patent and the serious money that can drain away while the OP is busy trying to perhaps get his company off the ground? All of a sudden he finds he is hit with bills right left and centre for stuff he did not even know was done in his name.

He needs to no whatever to get a grip and start doing some very small scale tests and gradually work up to as large as possible. Thinking it is possible to START at the "ready finished and ready to supply a Town of a 100,000 people with water now, is wrong and stupid. The OP will never see and realise any errors until they test and test and test again at a small scale before spending real cash, because that is what it will take.

Take care and do not worry about putting people off their dream. If their dream fails because just one person criticises it, then either the idea or the OP has a problem?

Hi AE,

There is so many sites which work out the amount of water in a M³, in many different methods. But there is a rising scale giving the amount of water air can hold per M³.

It increases ~ 10 grams per 10 ℃/per M³

30 ℃ = ~30 grams; 40 ℃ = ~40 grams; 50 ℃ = ~50 grams.

However this is assuming the air does have that much water in it to recover.

Is the "adiabatic" method, as described by the OP, going to work in the middle of a desert in the heat of day which is when most water is needed? And would the size and inherent cost and upkeep deliver enough water for a Town or City without necessarily being the size of a Town?

I am still looking into it, but I cannot see it is possible to recover water in an Adiabatic method. For the definition of Adiabatic see below:

In thermodynamics, an adiabatic process or an isocaloric process is a thermodynamic process in which no heat is transferred to or from the working fluid. The term "adiabatic" literally means impassable, coming from the Greek roots ἀ- ("not"), διὰ- ("through"), and βαῖνειν ("to pass"); this etymology corresponds here to an absence of heat transfer.

As I see it there will always be heat transfer. How much, perhaps depends on the temperature of the air used in trying to recover water in this method.

I think this is a clumsy, and very expensive active water recovery system. Other passive systems are already known to work very well and the amount of water can be predicted, and so the size of the water recovery equipment increased on a scale per area or, per quotient of people/animals.

The advantage of the 'passive' systems are, after building, the recovery of water takes virtually no wear and tear to the 'hardware'.

In the suggested method by the OP, as I see it, and I am still researching, it would need possibly several 'small garden sized' spaces and with the adiabatic method to work as predicted the structure would have to be substantial to prevent collapse, as one area is compressed and another 'opened'. There will always either be an energy necessary to perhaps open these areas and recover and cool the water. This could easily be solar.

My opinion is, a system as envisaged by the OP, where this adiabatic recovery of water can be used perhaps in any remote campsite, or Town which does not have any available water on the doorstep, so as to speak, may not be possible without substantial infrastructure.

However, I am still looking into this and it would be amazing if it could be made to work as described. Though I still think the tried and tested evaporation method, which CAN be set up anywhere and needs a piece of plastic or glass or metal only which may already be in use in other ways.

I wish you luck and am still researching this, and it is a very interesting Post, thank you.

"but there a rising scale giving the amount of water air can hold perM^3"

IMHO this is part of the language barrier that prevents us from communicating effectively on many subjects. Water vapor follows the gas laws and doesn't need air to HOLD it. Water vapor will do what it does in any gas or combination of gasses, or in a vacuum. Understanding of these fundamentals makes it easier to manipulate variables and reach workable solutions to the problem.

Hi welderman,

I am grateful you replied to my message, thank you.

I think though am not certain I agree with you.

However, I did not mention 'water borne air' first, the OP did. And it will give a rough idea as to how much water can be recovered and hence the size of the plant necessary in any particular location?

Actually, the 'dew' point is said to be a more constant measure of the amount water/air mix............ 'Vapor' is that...............

At the moment I am 'all vapored out' and am looking for another way to pass my time for a while before I get back to this thread! I have figures bouncing around my head and just need a 'rest'!

I really don't care who mentioed it first. I'm trying to clear up a misconception that likely originated with meterological observations but flies in the face of Dalton's teachings. The fact is that dew point and other water vapor related measurements are ONLY dependent on the partial pressure of water vapor, and not on any other gasses that happen to be in the mixture. Once you accept that, you can think more clearly about the problem of isolating and condensing the water.

Hi welderman,

I appreciate your reply post!

I understand the many varied way which can and often are confusing, which is why I wanted the OP to post with their original research?

I thank you once again

Take care and have a great holiday.

Hi welderman,

As a "for instance", if there was no air, what would happen to the water in the atmosphere?

What I said was a phrase and certainly not something to have kittens about. For want of a better explanation the water vapor is actually mixed with the atmosphere, but most people understand what is meant by "water held by air" perfectly well. I thought I was 'pedantic' you you have the lead on me for sure.

I would still be interested in your answer.

"As a "for instance", if there was no air, what would happen to the water in the atmosphere?"

The answer to your question is, nothing would happen to the water. If I am having kittens, it is because I'm attempting to give people the tools to help solve this and similar problems. There is a common myth that somehow the moisture is "held" by the air. The fact that you asked the question suggests that you subscribe to this myth. Once you dispel the myth, you can concentrate on the important work of solving the problem. If you are interested in pursuing this, try Googling Dalton's law of partial pressure.

welderman

You are right but there is a bit more to it than that. We have discussed a similar problem in this thread:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/40799#newcomments

It is quiet a read but has some clues within, supplied by several participants.

I think that bb was talking about the water particles that are already droplets in the air but I am not sure. In that case it would be important if they carry any dissolved gases with in them, which would be liberated from the water in a low pressure environment. The cooler the water the more gasses could be dissolved and if you ad/subtract pressure it becomes very complicated and hard to quantify let alone govern.

We can see how difficult if we observe what is going on with the Chunnel connecting Britain and France. Now we are talking scale and what can happen if not all is considered. Their explanation of "extremely fine snow flakes" causing a full stop to travel beats my understanding of what the real cause could be. Nothing sinister really but proof that even the big boys and their big toys have difficulty getting their heads around it. Cold meets warm meets pressure and it all stops and then say that it was not predictable. Is this really 2010 or soon to be?

I'm over it and enjoy the small scale which seems to work as predicted and all of the time. I wish we were all in one room with a black or white board and could observe the friendliness with which such thought experiments could be handled. I could even imagine laughter.

I'll be gone tomorrow for a while and wish all of you a great time during the break. No phone no computer and children galore. See you soon. Ky.

Hi ky,

Hope you had a nice holiday so far!

You are right I was talking more of the water droplets than the vapor. It is a mute point and certainly not something for 'pedantically inclined'!

All I am doing is trying to explain a relatively simple idea without mentioning half a dozen references of gas and pressure Laws, you know? Well, I know you understand. As an explanation 'held in the air' is as good as I can get, without those references to gas and pressure laws which would indeed be a PITA and prevent a flowing conversation.

Of course you realise none of this is aimed at you but I posted because you were kind enough to have mentioned me, thank you. At the moment I am 'biting my tongue' so hard it hurts!!! LOL!

Take care and good luck.

Hi welderman,

The post 47 was a little leg pull thats all.

I am aware of Dalton's Law.

The term of phrase I used was water held in the air. This is a common phrase and to most people on CR4 would be understood as a phrase to explain, rather than to say water floating in the air et al.

I am not one for Myths. I also am not mad on butterflys!....... Its a joke!

The details of every detail of every gas law does not need to be explained each time which is why not just me but other refer to "Water held in air". It may not be precise, but it is understandable to almost everyone as a short cut to the detailed meaning of the gas laws. Writing ad infinitum the details of the gas laws over and over again becomes frustrating and boring, as one slight error and it will be picked up.

Take care and good luck.

Although I don't have a comprehensive answeer to your problem, I am guessing that adiabatic expansion is not an efficient way to go about extracting energy from water. If I had to guess, I think someting that selectively extracts energy from water molecules, like inverse microwave heating, or a desiccant would be more efficient because it doesn't involve the other gasses in the atmosphere and works entirely on the water component. Water molecules have unique characteristics that should make them give up some thermal energy under the right conditions.

I appreciate the comments that were made by baby bear earlier. I was tired and in a moment of weakness I vented some frustration. I agree that this forum is meant to be an open and non judgemental venue to encourages baby ideas and sometime brilliance comes from those baby ideas.

My partner and I started exploring this technology on the hopes of harnessing the the abundant latent energy stored in the atmospheric lock box. As a few contributors have pointed out there is a non linear increase in the amount of water that a parcel of air can hold as that parcel of air's temp goes up. My partner has all those calculations and we have a number of computer routines that can plot the thermodynamics of the adiabatic process based upon given input air conditions. Meaning that we can plot the thermodynamic process on a Stuve diagram. This allows us to see both the saturated and unsaturated adiabatic path that air and water takes while undergoing the adiabatic decompression process. When we compare the amount of latent energy that our process generates it is amazingly large. Unfortunately as many of you have already figured out the latent energy is made up of 50-100F temperature differences. In other words 90F air in Singapore 100% humidity at 1000 milibars will generate a lot of water and a lot of latent energy. Unfortunately the latent energy has a low grade temperature delta maybe 100F. So I have given up on the idea of converting the latent energy into electricity, but this device has some surprising performance characteristics operating like a heat pump. The water created is quite cold and the air exhausted is much hotter than ambient temperatures.

In my next post I will share some of our calculations to give you some numbers that compare the latent energy with solar, and wind energy.

Hi AE,

This is in no way insulting towards you, but describing this site as you do, "I agree that this forum is meant to be an open and non judgemental venue to encourages baby ideas and sometime brilliance comes from those baby ideas", I thought for a moment I had logged into the wrong site.

You will get a very nasty taste in your mouth if you continue to assume this is a "Non judgemental" site for sure. This site is all about Good judgement, which is needed whether a relatively mundane request is put, the person wanting help does not think it is mundane of course. It is the first time they have come across a particular problem and is asking advice.

CR4 does have perhaps ~2% of those ideas you term "baby ideas". The rest of the requests are about all kinds of problems, from electrical, to knife sharpening perhaps, to the "I just wondered"?............ Type of approach.

I am still reading for my own amusement about your suggestion of the adiabatic way of making water, but still think IMHO, you will be more likely to find a fairy at the bottom of your garden than to make this work. It is not that I do not want it to work. But you make the point of saying "just as mother nature does", or very similar to that. Well "mother nature" takes a lot longer than your quoted 2 second me thinks?

You may have noticed that on the whole members here are more or less 'laid back', and (not aimed at you) they have enough skills and experience mostly from years of 'doing' what they are answering questions about on CR4. People are not going to believe something just because someone says it is true. Another trait of the site is in depth research, unless the thread requests answers that some are or have been working in and or on for most of their lives.

Compared to how I was 'treated', and I do not want to talk about that, and certainly am not holding any enmity toward anyone here, you have gotten away very lightly indeed. And remember, it is the first day after the weekend, a relatively quiet time on CR4, so you should get more responses from now on.

Do not take it out on anyone here just because they may have differing opinions, OK?

As far as I can see, you are the only person who has suggested this adiabatic process to gather water commercially. So just about everyone else, bar a few already posting, will not be automatically won-over by the description and or idea of this way of commercial water catching, simply because you as far as I know, seem to have invested the most in this idea already. I sincerely hope it does work. However, with regard to adiabatic water recovery, unlike the internal combustion engine, is not at all easily scale-able, and on, to a truly monumental approach towards water gathering!

This is, for the most part a friendly, and forgiving site where members will point out an erroneous idea or so called fact in a very kind way. Attitude has a lot to do with how or even if an idea is seen as 'workable' or not. 'Attitude' and I am talking of aggression, know it all, and ignoring the facts of science, and just plain rudeness, are the biggest turn offs for someone whom has seen your idea, or thread, whatever it is, not just on this site but in general conversation away from the web as well. I did not refer to you then and am not thinking about you and your ideas as I type. I am talking of respect, kindness, a willingness to advise and help others who ask all kinds of questions, the life blood of this site for sure. Acceptance and graciousness in approach are much friendlier than saying something you regret after it is posted. But it sometimes takes experience on this site or similar ones, though I think this is the 'best', to realise when a post aimed partially or wholly at you, is pulling your leg. Often the person looking for advice is so wound up in the 'looking' or research, and just trying to find things out and trying to understand ideas and methods completely alien to them, they do not see the foot stuck out for them to trip and fall flat of their face!

Last but certainly not least, and this is for any potential new thread writer, speak to others, especially to members of long standing with courtesy, and kindness, and most important, 'talk' to the members as you would wish to be spoken to. Remember, members do not often use all their voting privileges, but anyone whom is a constant PITA will and should get short thrift.

Read the words and sentences, not between the lines! That can course all kinds of misunderstandings.

I sincerely wish you luck, though the walls or should that be mountains you have to climb yet, are enormous. Once again, good luck........................

Take care.

You may be interested in this web site that describes how others have attempted to solve this problem http://www.rexresearch.com/airwell3/airwell3.htm

The Germans developed the supersonic V2 ballistic missile using several large concrete rooms evacuated, to provide a small supersonic wind tunnel. You may want to see how they did this. I can't remember the details but I do remember finding a nice book on it in our engineering library 20 years ago. You could try your local engineering library or online.

Hi Smeaton,

Is this the book you were talking of?

Amazon.com: The Peenemunde Wind Tunnels: A Memoir (9780300063677 ...This item: The Peenemunde Wind Tunnels: A Memoir by Peter P. Wegener. In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. This item ships for FREE with Super Saver ...

www.amazon.com › ... › Professionals & Academics › Scientists - Cached - Similar -

Hope this helps. Good luck

The difference in pressure between the inside and outside of the proposed chamber is 7.34 psi (1/2 atmosphere) ≈ 1057 psf. Thus it will require significant structural bracing, especially as the pressure is external.

Interesting problem. I can't tell if you are interested in:

Studying phase change. (As metioned by others already, you will need nucleation sites for the droplets to form, lest supersaturation may occur.)

Trying to evacuate a large chamber quickly.

Trying to dry out a large chamber.

Whether or not this chamber already exisists, or if new construction is allowed.

Note that the large volume will potentially allow for a relatively small surface area. (small surface to volume ratio.)

If the chamber is constant size, the mass of the remaining fluid/gas will be about half. You won't get all that water into fog. If there is much turbulence, it will all condense on the walls.

The NIST gas tables, publicly available, will allow you to assess the power requirements accurately, considering air and H2O. Starting with a 10,000 m^3 sphere, 4/3*pi*r^3 (~27 m dia) would be minimum size vessel, half filled with vacuum oil (the upper half filled with the air sample at starting pressure) and a large valve at the bottom.... Actually, I guess you could use water, since at the bottom you would have a relatively small area of exposed water, and the remaining water film would help you maintain 100% relative humidity, conducive to fog production. The rate of water (or other liquid) transfer would still likely be a problem to get this to happen in 1-2 seconds.

Smaller volumes and higher air pressures would be easier to build apparatus for.

This vessel positioned near Denver (or Ft Collins, NIST headquarters?) would get you somewhere below one standard atmosphere at that altitude, then you could charge the vessel to two atmospheres, then vent it, and the diameter of the vessel would be only about 21.5 meters! This doesn't get you to the exact pressures, but the model might give you the answers your looking for.

I just got access to the rest of the thread, and I find you are trying to get water from vapor in the atmosphere as water production.

This needs points more towards a continuous process than a single chamber. Compress the air past the dew point, let the water drop out and collect it. Then use the compressed air to drive a motor which assists the compressor. Most of the work compressing the air is then recovered, sort of reversibly. I think the thermodynamics of this cycle will work with real machines, but it may be cheaper to import water in places with 10% RH. The expanded air will be at lower temperature, and may be useful for refrigeration to boost the overall efficiency. Lower RH means higher compression required to get to the dew point.

You might check with Alfa Laval. They build waste heat desalinization units, working at low pressure to keep the water production cycle within ambient temperature for water condensation.

Still can't figure out what the significance of 5000 m^3 is.

RobtHoyt@nctv.com

Hi RobHoyt,

Just a quick welcome to you!

This is a great site with for the most part friendly members.

They are clever, and knowledgable. Hope you find it to your liking!

Good luck

I appreciate the many comments concerning starting with small scale experiments prior to large scale projects. That is how we have been pushing this project forward up till now. We have focused on a device roughly the size of a cubic meter. I did mean to give you the impression that we are taking the "go BIG or go home approach." Of coarse we are validating the process and the initial application designs at a reasonable scale. Sorry for not confirming this earlier in the thread. I was looking for suggestions on how others would approach this problem from a large scale stand point.

A few people have raised the concern of energy input into the system. We are only drawing a vacuum in the range of 1:2 - 1:3. Putting this into context with internal combustion engines which regularly operate with much higher combustion ratios of say 10:1 or greater. Our device will not consume nearly as much energy to run as an IC engine because we do not need the same quality of friction causing seals. Before we debate this point, I have also spoken to the worlds leading engineering firm that designs engines for all the manufacturers.

There are a number of approaches that can be used to draw down the pressure rapidly. Here are is a small few for consideration: Piston cylinder - the decompression can be done in less than a second then the water would need to be scrubbed out of the chamber before the air is re-compressed back to ambient pressure (this will only work with incredibly low mass material think aero gel); another approach would be using a bellows/accordian like device (think low mass like wet suit material)- again the decompression can occur very rapidly; a more continuous flowing approach would be using a root blower to suck air into a chamber that expanded and decompressed the air and then upon exit re-compressed the air. I am intrigued to better understand how pressure waves might induce a swift phase change and if the change is due to decompression or compression. I have always wondered if the dramatic cloud that forms on the front of a jet passing through the sound barrier, given the right environmental circumstances, is on the decompression side or the compression side of the wave.

One thing that is also very intriguing to me is the idea of using a very light weight /low mass material for this machine. I wonder if it would be possible to take a device like a "blow up air inflated pool" and turn it into an adiabatic decompression device. The air filling the voids in the structure creates a fantastic insulating material. Yes, the obvious down side is the lack of structure needed to resist collapsing during the decompression phase. But maybe like a well designed bridge the design can overcome the inherent weakness in the strength of the material?

Another idea that has recently been introduced is the idea of two sphere that are connected via a tube in between. Imagine the top sphere is half filled with air and half filled with water. if you had a valve at the bottom of the sphere and opened the valve to let the water drain into the sphere below. If the sphere below was under similar decompression to the sphere above would the water drop down to the lower chamber and thus increase the vacuum in the upper chamber?

"Another idea that has recently been introduced is the idea of two sphere that are connected...."

You have been playing with balloons haven't you. You are getting warmer. Consider the lesser turbulence's and the ability to spin a "thing" or two. After I replied to your post I saw it all up and running with in a few relaxed seconds. My prior knowledge of the matter did help. Something can come from nothing, like I suggested.

I'll be in touch, Ky.

Tornado

Excellent boil down Tornado. GA.

This contraption is to scale and as good as it can get, for the time being. Have a look here:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1965000.htm

Smart operator and he is showing results were water is really scarce. I hope the link connects proper because it sums up a few things which are being discussed here. Don't know what became of the guy but he at least tried hard with simple means.

BTW all animosities between the OP and my self have been settled in a gentleman way. Australian wine was to blame.

Gough Whittlam (ex prim minister of Australia) was once asked by a journo why he drank french red wine at an Australian function. He replied , pointing to his Adams apple: "Once it passes here it becomes Australian mate!" Just like ideas that float uninhabited, they can find an owner.

The chores are bugging me, gotta go, Ky.

Here is the link I meant. It has been tried before and works on a small scale in a few places as we speak.

Just got back and I can tell you it is dangerous out there on the highway. Need to settle down a bit and will then join the discussion again. I have to be careful not to make a fool out of my self and not give away a potential solution at the same time.

I have noted some very good comments/PM's and will respond in the next few days. Happy new year to all, Ky.

Thanks Ky, fascinating hours of reading, many, many approaches. Some good "20-20" clues.

I love that Knapen put a rain hat on the intake pipe.

_{^{(It's good to see you're in PM on this, as I'd say, from previous, you know how this principal aught to be done, better than most. )}}

Hi Kyzine,

ky...............this is confusing I I have hardly typed a letter yet, two ky's..............

Actually ky does not know any more betterer prinsciples than I do! I fully understand what has to be done. I just do not want to put my 'cards on the table' yet, as I am looking to build a prototype and get it assayed and registered and, errmmm, invented and Painteded Patented and stuff!......................................

Is there cows in this field, I can smell a whole big whiff of BS from me!

It really is confusing having two 'ky/Ky's' on this thread! Don't know whether I am coming or going, already been or waiting to go.........Wheres me coat.........Oh I got it on........................ I am guessing I get at least a dozen off topic's for this! Oh well.

Take care and have a laugh, it is holidays, innit?

Hi BB, just abbreviate me to Kz for KyZine, but fear not - ky and I are not at all confused, him especially on condensing.

But thanks, a funny post and like that naughty europium, putting up the exact same thing as the "new idea", cyclonic separators in a 'vacuum' and all , it lightens things up nicely.

Dear BB

Confusion shall be yours for no longer. Here is a choice of spellings for my name. You can ad a 'zine' if you like but in the end it will all condense to the same pronunciation. I can't think of another name that can be spelled it so many ways. All yours but whatever you do, don't call me Mr. Lube.

Here goes:

Kai, Kaigh, Kaih, Kay, Keigh, Keih, Keiy, Ceiye, Khai, Khay, Khaye Khigh, Khy, Khye, Ki, Kigh, Kih, Kihe, Kihy, Kihye, Kuy, Kuye, Ky, Kye, Kyei, Kyi, Kyie.

For good measure you could use a "C"

Cai, Caigh, Caih, Cay, Ceigh, Ceih, Ceiy, Ceiye, Chai, Chay, Chaye, Chigh, Chy, Chye, Ci, Cigh, Cih, Cihe, Cihy ,Cihye, Cuy, Cuye, Cy, Cye, Cyei, Cyi, Cyie.

Imagine them all as gas saturated water droplets entering a vacuum chamber. Not much left after the process, I suppose. Possibly a lot of "Y's" (why's) and a phase change or two.

Why should your year end with less confusion than it started with?

Hope this helps, Kigh.

Hi ky...........................................................................................................

Thats all the other variation written so small you can barely see them.

Like your post, and yes there is a whole lot a variety there for sure!

Did you mean "phase change" or "phrase change">?

Take it easy....................

Hi Tornado,

I like the cut of your jib for sure!

Well put 'argument' with good detail.

GA to you Sir.

I had something in mind when I wrote my first post here but did not put any meat on the bones of my ideas like you have.

I just said it would take something like a JET engine to achieve this, and by your figures was perhaps not that far of the mark? Designing a building which would not implode as such a force is applied in 2 seconds would alone make this idea impractical in my opinion.

take care and well done.

Build another, identical chamber connected to #1 by means of a jimongous gate valve. Seal the valve and then suck #2 down to 10 mTorr or so (the vapor pressure of water is around 20 mTorr or so, so that'll do. When you're ready, pop the valve and let the horses run free. Depending on how you realize the design, the pressure in both chambers can theoretically equalize at around 1/2 ATM in under one second after one helluva wind-storm. A couple of big-ass Roots blowers on #2 could suck it down in under an hour or less.

If y'all want advice on building and pumping REALLY BIG low-pressure chambers, contact General Electric's Turbine Division in Cincinnatti, Ohio, where they test jet engines at altitude. Three 11-foot-diameter ducts connect the blowers to the test chamber, and they run their tests at night when electricity is cheaper.

My two pesos' worth.

Hi europium,

Interesting facts on the low pressure chambers of General Electric's set up!

I think whatever has been said about this, it is going to take a hell of a lot of power to complete the evacuation as far as needs be. Someone mentioned "leather bellows". Cannot recall; or find it at the mo' but even leather is not going to stand up to continuous use for long. Has to be something solid, and that means IMHO lots of dosh, cash, wanga etc. "Green" is good and sounds nice but it is not so green if it has to be rebuilt every few weeks/months?

Perhaps something along the lines of the "nodding donkeys" pumping oil in the Texas desert? Big and strong and not cheap, at least to start with but also something which will last.

Perhaps a reciprocating piston of, in this case an area equaling the 5,000 M³, ~ 17 M square with a 'swept volume of the same )17 metres. To move that or anything with anywhere near the same 'volume' is going to take a whole lot of power. It may be possible with a solar driven engine/motor but it alone will prevent it being all that green?

Take it easy, and I like your idea!

Hi, bb, glad you're feeling better.

Did a quick sum, & the force on the piston of your 'reverse atmospheric engine' would be about 1,500,000 kgf when you have halved the pressure in the cylinder.

It would have to be some "nodding donkey" !

Keep well,
John

Hi JohnDG,

Thank you for your kind post.

I did no estimates of force other than the ones for volume for a 5000 metre cube earlier in the thread. So the leather bellows I read about on this thread may not quite be 'man enough' then!

It may not be correct, but as I understand it, even if there was a metre cube to evacuate, to get as much water as the 17.1 metre cube as originally envisaged, would take smaller amounts of energy but the total necessary would be the same?

I think the passive condensation fences as sent in by Ep I think, would do the job and by comparison would of course be passive and need no energy. In my opinion a much better idea and although it was said to be an 'art work' very little iv any extra work would be necessary to convert it to a practical water recovery device? The fence is already being made, IE chain-link. Stretch that and you will have the same effective solution surely?

Take care

Yea - I'll go with passive (the fence sounds good). Not up to doing sums this time of night/year, but decompression sounds like a no-no.

Happy New Year .

JD, to maybe free up your drinking/partying time;

I'd put vacuum decompression at the top of energy expended list. Creating a vacuum is the law of diminishing returns incarnate - even using a pressure balanced opposed piston design (as I suspect the OP has - on the lab bench).

But (even with a gauze wiping 'piston', as I'd use in the lab device) it's still high in difficulty of % condensate collection and so Low on the return on % moisture list.

Second on energy list; simple compression above ambient and expansion down to produce condensation. Higher on the return on % moisture list

BUT; the energy failure of both is manipulating the 1.23 kg/m³ of process quiescent air.

Tornado's (revised) numbers illuminate this HP wasted on air. I would not expect a 'breakthrough', just a worsening due to device selection/'imperfection'.

----------------------

So moving on, BB, et al (inc OP),

Air manipulation HP independent systems

It's a toss up between solar powered ammonia absorption (a fixed installation) or mechanical refrigeration (fixed or portable) and;

Atmosphere powered systems (fixed);

Above ground condensation structures loose yield due to evaporative core cooling requirements (to counter solar absorption). These piles should really have been in-ground; additionally why?, see next

Underground ponds and tunnels capture 'ground fog', rain, dew, have low evaporative cooling losses, but are a lot of digging. They are quite site dependent and vulnerable to what is in the ground (arsenic, salt, heavy metals, sulfurous shit, etc).

Fences are great if you have space, slope and fog levels.
I.e. quite site dependent, also salty breeze and/or dust, are factors.
Not so good is; PP and PE commonly use carcinogenic UV stabilizers - lots to get the claimed years out of "not carbon black filled" shade cloth.

I'd want to know if it's "food grade" and QA, before getting excited.

I'd also consider loss to fire ^{_{(of any fully plastic rural system)}}

And loss to wind ^{_{(as Christo found out wrapping Sydney's Little Bay)}}

-----------------

In all above, don't forget the local plumbing, filtration, QA, storage infrastructure, cost and maintenance. And if your going to build all that - do include capturing rain.

-----------------------

So if the brief is "where water is required" - first cost a pipe from where water is, against; how much water is in the air (and when), so capture returns + capital cost. None of these systems are as simple as they appear when you look at the actual build magnitude and what it yields.

If the capture system is not self powered, then ship water.

And I'd get that water, piped or shipped, from direct wind/wave powered nano-filtration (read off shore desalination).

Hi Kyzine,

and a happy new year BTW!

This is the Catalogue of the Fog-quest people and this is already working, though I have not gone into it in enough detail to see how they collect the water.

http://www.fogquest.org/pdf/Fog_Newsletter_current.pdf

I realise all you mention and all have there good and bad points but the fog-fence idea with capture at the base by pipes which direct any rain or the daily fog once or twice a day would be better than non at all?

I also understand the possible dangers of carcinogens, crop spray, bird shit etc, but once the water is collected and is saved to an underground reservoir, lined if necessary, it can be tested and if need be treated and then fed onto taps.

I mentioned underground storage because I have seen it and this prevents evaporation to the air.

I am not arguing FOR it, but a few trial sites around the world where fences are anyway would cost hardly anything and could at least water crops and or provide water for cattle? Just a thought....................

Take care.

Hi BB,

Didn't mean to infer you were 'arguing for it', I'm just posing a few questions on overall system 'sustainability' (as is my habit).

Wouldn't pay to set up a village, or future plan, in terms of yields, if it turns out you cannot rely on it, other things kill it, or some un-factored nasty provides a slow death.

As you know - technical possibility/viability is one thing - real usefulness may be another thing all together.

A bit like a USB powered vacuum cleaner is 'possible'

But what if the extra toy kills your USB power supply?

What happens to your processor and/or data it the back-emf filter is faulty or dies?

You know - that sort of 'system' whatever question.

And my best to you for the New Year

Kz

"A bit like a USB powered vacuum cleaner is 'possible'

But what if the extra toy kills your USB power supply?"

Now, that would suck.

^{_{[patiently awaiting well-deserved bitch-slap..]}}

But would it suck 5000 m³ in 2 seconds? (Never mind, I'd rather investigate the continuous screw compressor method some more, though I'm not particularly optimistic.) (This is made harder because the psychrometric chart I have is at atmospheric pressure only.)

Hmm, haven't heard from the OP for a while. Has he given up even before the rest of us?

I'd say yes to that last.

Mass flow can be achieved by duplication of modules. The thing with vacuum's is you use a lot more power as media density reduces and atmospheric relative 'back pressure' rises. But you could plot the curve assuming an infinite bore, perfect piston.

Hi Tornado,

Perhaps he is still on holiday? Or has indeed left because there seemed at the time, to be no agreement that his 'invention', which in fact it wasn't, worked anyway?

Take care

Hy Kyzine,

I did not mean to infer either that you was looking for an argument, just my way of starting a post and letting you know where I am coming from, thats all.

I think what you say makes sense.

Flood plains are not the best place to live sometimes but, they do provide good soil and water. So trying to 'make' another less inviting place, say the side of a mountain as home is always going to be hard?

Take it easy.

AE, here is a simple way to do this, but it will never work on the Massive (5000 m3!) volume that you are talking about. The other thing is that you absolutely must have nucleation sites added to the air, or the water will only supersaturate and not condense.

You first make a outer container that is extremely well braced and sealed (very expensive) and draw it down in a high vacuum (also very expensive). Inside of this chamber you have a second chamber that has a very tight seal with one or more movable walls (that stay sealed while they move). You then put your wet air in the inside chamber and hit a release, allowing the inner chamber to expand to twice its volume.

The physics involved in this entire process will never allow it to scale to the size that you want, no matter what process you use. To put it in perspective, you are trying to double the volume of your average sized grocery store...in a few seconds time. The momentum from just the air would most likely level your average house (think hurricane force winds). And for the record, I also work with a bunch of PhD's doing research, and there are very few groups that can put out a larger number of stupid ideas.

I agree with all the previous posts that brought up the point about nucleation. Since I am working with ambient air my belief is that there will be ample particles suspended in the air to allow nucleation. We are not talking about a clean room environment here. I anticipate using some filtration to prevent unwanted types of particulates from entering the device (think pollution). People don't have a problem drinking rain, but acid rain is like drinking cheap grappa!

I came up with a very similar concept to yours concerning the chamber within a chamber. Mine was a little simpler. I thought large outer chamber probably spherical with a tube coming into the center. At the end of the tube would be attached, for lack of a better visual, a balloon (think made of wetsuit material very durable and elastic and insulating). Fill the balloon half way with ambient air, then close the valve which allowed ambient air to enter. Now use a few root blowers to decompress the outer chamber, viola the balloon has expanded and the air inside has decompressed. I will bet this is done in an adiabatic manner.

Hi Kyzine,

Pleas Sir, me sir, I would like to "strongly defend Sir! You say only an idiot would do this Sir............... I am an idiot, I think, so I can and want to seek 'to infringe'. I need a hair cut anyway sir please?.......................................

Sorry for that silliness!

What you write is clear and to the point, mention of particular ideas and reasons helps explain the whys and rules any system cannot be used or made anywhere near as useful and productive as perhaps the OP may have in mind. IE. For the most part this as is most similar heating and or cooling and water recovery systems, are no more effective than perhaps a car IC Engine in its efficiency?

I think AE would be better off and make more money if they become an "Inventions Attorney"!

It is nice to see we are all talking again, instead of sideswiping and side glancing before we type or talk?

This is a discussion site as much as a help site, and I can see not reason why we cannot have our own ideas, and still agree to disagree with all and sundry?

After all, there would be little inventive advance and no joy in 'achieving' an inventive goal if we all of use agreed? Surely it is the imperative of disagreement, and that "I can do it" idea, that is the shove in the back inventors seek?

Take care and good inventing!

Thank you Cub Ursidae, also to L57 #19 (GA)

"For the most part this as is most similar heating and or cooling and water recovery systems, are no more effective than perhaps a car IC Engine in its efficiency?"

"Big picture logic"?

We have a drying climate, so falling growth rates and elevated energy levels. The OP concept is the opposite of what we need to do/encourage.

Note however, this has not biased my input, other than outlining the 'most efficient' (= least Climate damaging), way to do it.

May well be my new Avatar

Hi Kyzine,

I appreciate your Latin mention! LOL!

Just a few observations............................

Yes, saying an idea is "nice" but not explaining how the power to recover the water in a Rural area will be achieved and paid for in virtually any country, is a great thought. But that only. A "thought"

'Thought' never stopped anyone dying of thirst?

OK, a 'machine' (my terminology) is built. And with my magic wand I make it possible for all Towns to have one.

1) How is the 'condensate-water' recovered.

2) what is the size of the machine and structure surrounding it.

3) Who will maintain it and wow with they get paid and why? When five kilometres away there is a 10 metre pipe full of water. Would it not be easier to equip tricycles with water carriers, already done in part of the world, to carry the water to the people?

4) Who is going to build and or pay for a machine in a Town or very large area say in Chad or Ethiopia in Central Africa, when they cannot pay for food, how can they pay for a machine or many of them?

5) In wars the first thing that is smashed in the infrastructure, power, and water. If that water come via a pipe or a well it can be recovered withing a relatively short time. If these machines are bombed in knife edge areas where there is no water, thats it....!

Where people live............ They live there because water is there or within a reasonable distance away. and or, they have a way to capture and transfer it to Towns and villages.

Where there is people and no water, there is no water because there air is relatively dry if not bone dry. In these conditions.......... Ethiopia for instance, water is too far down to dig for and a pumped air system suggested will not collect any water when and where it is needed.

What it all boils down to is money. In rich countries they have water because they can afford to recover and distribute it. And they have tanks that hold the water when there is none from the pipe or nature. In poor places there in no money.............

The recovered water in the system suggest when used just about anywhere it is necessary, will have to have storage, and filtration systems, and a way of cleaning the recovery equipment/machines.

Nuf said.

Take care and good luck.

Kyzine,

You have some great points. And I accept that many people on this thread disbelieve in the potential of this technology. My intent was not to convert anyones beliefs, rather my intent was to harvest great ideas and to flush out issues that I may not have thought about. You have stated a number of issues, most of which I have considered and appreciate your comments.

You aptly point out that where water is needed is usually where it is most scarce. That is not always true. Potable water is highly needed in Florida (most people don't know this), India, and many parts of South East Asia. All areas of the globe that are hot humid with large amounts of rain fall. What they are missing is CAPITAL. Read $$$$$$$$. I understand that this is an engineering oriented website, but capital is a material that is in short supply around the world. Reverse osmosis and the major water creation technologies that people keep bringing up rely upon a VERY EXPENSIVE infrastructure in order to deliver the water to where it is needed. I say again to those that are listening, I am focused on delivering water to where it is needed regardless of where the need is. You are not considering the fact that the USA has not invested in its municipal water infrastructure for over 40 years. The infrastructure is dilapidated and most estimates place the capital investment needed to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. You have probably noticed that our incomes have dropped recently and that tax collections are also expected to drop. Oh and we are trying to pass a healthcare bill that will increase the federal budget and drain more taxes away from infrastructure. So I ask where will the money come from to rebuild our crumbling water infrastructure? Soaking the rich is not an answer. But creating a distributed water infrastructure is and this is why the US and other federal governments are actively looking for ideas like mine.

So what you said theoretically is true, but given the reality of a developed country like America or an emerging country like India - they don't want to spend the money to build out the infrastructure to pump the water hundreds of miles. If they could install a device that harvests enough water to support the local community's needs and forgo the massive infrastructure costs and all the taxes that go along with that infrastructure then I think that they will buy it. This is just my point of view

All true; but please do it efficiently in a manner that can be simply engineered, is energy sustainable, has a minimal infrastructure cost and reasonable longevity.

On Your idea posts span; massive, an energy black hole, high maintenance, and a fatigue limited life.

"But creating a distributed water infrastructure is and this is why the US and other federal governments are actively looking for ideas like mine."

On the other hand it is not unlike the thinking you're trying to fix, so no doubt will get a great hearing.

Just take into account there are ~14 people on this thread able to do it better. Perhaps the morally responsible thing is to put Feds in touch with them?

Um?

As for the government and social injustice 'main body' of your response, there is a thread on such matters on CR4. I'm sure your observations would be very welcome.

Some details are of relevance to this topic;

A. If an area has rain, you can fit gutters and tanks, far cheaper than any other unnatural potable production device.

B. You are not 'creating' water, you are harvesting an existing resource (= taking from Climate for profit, without compensation = Climate Debit)

C. Reverse osmosis is old hat.

Hi Kyzine,

With regards to your last post.

Yes, Guttering of any kind can be very cheap and cost effective. Leading to a covered container, in areas where Bamboo grows, it can be halved and used as guttering for nothing.

Good luck.

WHAT! DYI environmental solutions - in a potential 6 billion consumers market? Heresy - BB - Heresy.

Hy Kyzine,

The opulent multi Billionaire pan country companies hardly exist where these machine might be necessary. So I would call it practical rather than heresy!

Despite appearances most of the worlds peoples are still 'Farmers', often out of need and they may be in a co-operative where they earn, just enough. China is a case in point. Some of their Citizens are so far away from Beijing they probably hardly see any 'officials' above a small Town Mayor. They will not be able to go out and buy what they need, they make it, tools and all. That is what they have to do.

To them it matters not one jot whether the Government is Labour, fish, elephant, socialist, Conservative, because what happens rarely affects the peasant and the rich peasant who may rent a few acres of land to grow rice on.

Me thinks I am talking to the 'converted' anyway!

Take care and have a great holiday

Once more you write about thinks you do not know! Is it usual for you?

In the middle east this approach was used already centuries ago to supply water to trees in a quite desert region. The technology was lost and rediscovered about 30..40 years ago. In fact the rocks are NOT all heated and their heat is lost at night.

I am pleased to notice that you do not use any more the vocabulary of one of your first interventions, you did a big progress and it is positive. Many of your comments are not bad. With time passing by you could become a valuable participant.

Hi nick name,

Not really sure why you said Kyzine talked of things he knows nothing of?

And then in your last sentence you 'almost' complimented him?....................

Is it one of those posts where you hit them over the head and then say well done?

Me thinketh you pullest thine leg!

You say it was used about 30 or 40 years ago to water trees? Do you know of any details like books, or sites it may be on? It would be interesting to see how it worked?

Hope you had a great holiday so far and good luck for the rest.

Absolutely no insult intended here, OK? Just a little leg pull of my own!

You wrote;

"During the day hot air enters the spaces. At night stones and air are colder and water condenses.

"using same principle: entrap hot air during the day and cool it at night thus obtaining a water condensation"

Now you write; "In fact the rocks are NOT all heated and their heat is lost at night."

It's good to see you are now making "big progress" in learning how that system operates.

Here is some help toward being relevant, on topic and "with time" a "valuable participant" (and successful PM fisher)

Pay particular attention to the scale verses yields. Perhaps even ask yourself why the core temperature is 'lower than expected".

Hi Kyzine,

Hope your part of the holiday has gone alright so far?

Really like your link in post # 75.

I am waiting to see the detail 'nick name' said was discovered about 30/40 years ago?

Take care and good luck.