Resonance, Traveling Wave: Cheap Way to Compress Air?

Your identifying energy as heat. Throughout the process the energy is changing forms, whether its heat to pressure and back again.

Along with this, one has to realize the difference between potential and kinetic energy. And not confuse the two.

"Your identifying energy as heat. Throughout the process the energy is changing forms, whether its heat to pressure and back again."

Heat is energy, pressure is not. Here's why I say that.

pressure x area = force

force x distance = work

pressure x area x distance = work

area x distance = volume

pressure x volume = work

Work and energy are both measured in the same units, I use ft-lbs since I learned from old books. Work and energy are different manifestations of the same thing or they wouldn't be measured in the same units. If pressure is equal to work divided by volume, then pressure is not work or energy.

Pressure is a component of force, and force is a component of work, and work is equivalent to energy.

In an air tank, pressure reading on a gauge doesn't measure energy available or how much work can be done. It's like temperature. I don't think anyone calls temperature a form of energy. Pressure and temperature can be measured, volume can be determined, and using the gas laws and other principles, available energy can be figured out. If there's some way that pressure can be energy, let me know what it is.

"...one has to realize the difference between potential and kinetic energy. And not confuse the two."

When air is static, its pressure is at a maximum, but potential energy doesn't do work, it is the potential to do work. When work is being done, kinetic energy is doing work because something is moving. When compressed air starts moving, its pressure goes down because an energy media's total energy is part kinetic and part potential but a quantity of energy isn't both kinetic and potential at the same time, they are complements of the whole. Bernoulli's principle says that moving air goes down in pressure, and when it stops moving it goes back up in pressure.

Pressure corresponds to potential energy and kinetic energy corresponds to velocity.

"Your identifying energy as heat. Throughout the process the energy is changing forms, whether its heat to pressure and back again."

Heat and pressure manifest at the same time, they are not complements of each other. In a constant volume, temperature and pressure vary in direct proportion to each other, and with constant pressure, temperature and volume vary in direct proportion to each other. That's Charles' Law.

Can you explain what you mean by heat changing to pressure and back again? If heat is added pressure goes up, if heat is taken away, pressure goes down. I don't know what you're trying to say. It's time for my milk and cookies. goodnight.

"Can you explain what you mean by heat changing to pressure and back again?"

I mentioned prior I may not be the one here, I apologize for that.

I should have been more diligent with my actual intent and should not have been so loose with the types of units, by putting it in a laymans terms, that was my mistake to do it on this forum. Its unit conversion was the point I was trying to get across:

BTU/sec to pound-force/sec.

the friction of the molecules passing through the passages & being compressed

unless you can preserve [or otherwise redirect] that potential, the heat is a problem, not a solution

again & again you make one of the classic overunity assumptions

that there is a conspiracy to suppress or otherwise refuse to use viable technology

do you really think the big guys would really leave would leave billions [more like trillions] of dollars on the table? to what end?

"the friction of the molecules passing through the passages & being compressed"

The way I see it, air friction in pipes causes a loss of pressure but not a loss of energy. When pressure goes down in a trapped mass of air, volume goes up. I didn't make this up, it's from a textbook. The author was trying to correct what he called a commonly held false hydraulic analogy, or wrong assumption about how air works.

I guess that means, in a hydraulic line, if you lose pressure you lose the energy that made the pressure. But in an air line, if you still have the working pressure you need after a pressure loss due to pipe friction, then you have no problem. You haven't lost anything of value because the PV is the same. That is a bit of an exaggeration because there probably isn't time for ambient heat to go through the pipe walls and replace the temperature loss that comes with accidental expansion due to air friction.

One air car inventor told me he always wrapped little heating pads around elbows in his piping.

As for responding to what you were trying to say, what was it you were trying to say?

you ask what am I trying to say?

simple, where's the data?

you can't even be bothered to make something up...

wishing & hoping ,don't make it so

"the coal burned to drive the compressor, not one foot-pound of this energy reaches his air-operated machine through the compressed air, but that what really drives this machine is the expansion of the atmosphere itself"

This, in particular, sounds to me like a comment by someone struggling to explain the Stirling cycle.

If so, then "atmosphere" is the machines internal one, or the aspirated products of coal combustion - not the Earth's one.

However, in your context, this part is wrong ... or culpably edited/shortened.

"The truth of the matter is that all the work done upon the air in compressing it is transformed into heat ..."

In your case; there is no such thing as purely adiabatic, or for that matter purely isothermal compression - especially in the world of the "practical man".

But in the Stirling case, it is somewhat explanatory of why the pressures change and things move "due directly to these evidences of heat and cold".

It is not surprising that this clumsy explanation has 'disappeared'.

Then again, I could be wrong, and the guy just didn't know about Charley Boyle

The gist of your post is that I stole a reference from an irrelevant topic and tried to transpose it onto my argument and use it for evidence. That would be fraudulent, don't you think? It would be if you were paying me for my time.

I don't think you want to bring up the topic of fraud. There are many levels which depends on the type of forums, of which you do not have to be paid money. Fraud can be to gain support.

And in my opinion, the direction of this post has gone so far south to a point of not being able to recover. Review it, learn from it and develop a new delivery system.

Umbrage is the refuge of scoundrels;

If you care to read the closing line/s of my post - the other choice is the author is an idiot.

We have covered this bit of rampant stupidity previously;

"Referring to the diagram in Fig. 17, it will be noted that part of the total work of
compression represented by the area MABR is performed by the atmospheric air rushing into the cylinder behind the piston during the compression stroke and not by energy furnished by the compressor. This work is represented by the area MAFR."

If comments like 'not unless the crankcase is evacuated' mean nothing to you - then ask yourself why a vacuum pump needs to be powered?

Or;

Why isn't every pneumatic cylinder in the World permanently extended?

What sort of a total tosser do you have to be to swallow such an obviously flawed "pet theory patch"?

If that isn't enough, then if ALL the energy is converted to heat, where does the 'pressure' come from?

You are holding as 'authoritive' the attempts to explain by those who were never taught Charley Boyle.

But the upside is you have responded to a post of mine. Now all you need to do is furnish the data the ones you were studiously ignoring, called for.

still waiting for the data, that will back up the "cheap" claim

the OP mentions self-filling air tanks &

"The energy source is the ambient heat already in the air, being upgraded to a useful condition by being inserted into an air tank many times more cheaply than by the conventional means of being pushed in laboriously against resistance"

back peddling could be a viable energy source

Lutherman, you have to update your website. The information is way outdated with its implications.

Hahaha - I'm reminded of advising a student wishing to win a 1/4 mile air powered drag race, to keep the compressed air hot. This was to avoid a drop much below STP and freezing his motor.

This basically required an energy supplement "cheat" to make a compressed air vehicle 'competitive' - whereas 'reheating via combustible additives' would be a 'full cheat'.

Somehow I'm getting a feeling where the OP is going with all this.

Somehow I'm getting a feeling where the OP is going with all this

probably back to Keelynet

I would have to guess what you're criticizing about that quote. It's a real quote and this patent was for the most commercially successful and most efficient air engine ever built. Hodges was an engineer for H K Porter Co, a locomotive company that is still in business. Their air powered coal mining locomotive was also used all over Europe.

The purpose of the quote is to point out that air cars are more efficient in stop-and-go driving than in straight cruising, and that this is not true of other vehicle modes. The reason is that the vehicle is fitted with COMPRESSORS so that when the car decelerates, the compressor is engaged to assist in the task of slowing the car down. This heats the tank and increases its pressure.

Cruising in an air car is relatively wasteful because the tank keeps getting colder and colder inside, so the pressure goes down faster than an optimist would want it to.

I think my point is that an air car with NO compressor of any kind on board is stupid.

As for the many claimants who ran compressors all the time except while the air car was first getting rolling, one of them asks, How much of the time is the car actually under power? He thought about 40%, which sounds like an exaggeration on the low side. I would like to hear other peoples' guesses on that.

I don't refute that quote.

I realize its to bring the process up to heat. Having to run R&D for Wiped Film Evaporators we need to get them fully satuated, Minimum 24 hours for them to work effiecently.

It as just that how your implemented the quotes is the same as how you look for supportive physics. You tend to pick and choose what suits you, and ignore the rest. Making critical thinking for an unbiase and balanced discussion difficult.

Just stopped by for a laugh. Wasn't disappointed.

^{_{Unsubscribes self.}}

You have provided excellent ways which are helpful for compressing air. Just a quick note to let you know that I liked what I read.

We are making a lot of progress on this theory. It works like blowing air over a Coke bottle.

Compressed air is regarded as the fourth utility, after electricity, natural gas and water. However, compressed air is more expensive than the other three utilities when evaluated on a per unit energy delivered basis. Thanks.