OverUnity prize money 15825 US$ total until now

[The Eskimo Quinn]

Not sure you understand volume very well? for a start this system has been built and tested by the firm that now owns it, and are among the top industrial heating equipment suppliers in the world.

60 litres per second is 60 litres per second,???

if i fill a bucket will 4 litres of water that takes 4 minutes to fill, and then add a one litre overflow pocket before outlet to a pipe it should take 5 mins to fill correct?? (i litre per min)

now after the first 5 mins it will have an output of 4 litres per 4 mins or litre per min, you cannot change flow, once a device is full, whatever the flow rate is is a static point of measurement.

Once the loop is full using the same equation as above, then the flow rate remains 60 litres per second (that is the standard flow rate for most air con systems)

There is no missing 20 percent of volume, or the system would build up the 20 percent as pressure every second, I'm pretty sure there is not 12 litres "per second" magically disappearing and when measuring the flow rate  from the outlet, we have never even found a loss of air flow.

But basic fluid dynamics is usually the first thing overlooked by even the best physics people, same as cancer specialists for cancer, skin specialists for skin etc will always see what the GP can miss.

Basic fluid dynamics 101: the loop is already full of air/fluid (air or liquid is always referred to as fluid)
so you don't need to find the extra 20 percent to fill it for the first run, all fluid in the device starts to move simultaneously, even it the fluid was liquid and the loop full of air it is still fluid now under pressure and still comprises a percentage of the total volume.

In any event the reason it qualified for an inventive step in the patent application was for that reason.

Inventive step does "NOT" mean a new invention, it means something even an engineer would not easily understand from a conversation and for that matter even a schematic until built. The use of The owner (for whom I designed the device) as the credibility source being one of the leading heating engineers in high tech thin film carbon element design as being sufficient validation as an independent builder and tester in the global commercial arena in conjunction with the engineers at the patent office was sufficient.

Whilst it is difficult for most to comprehend that the extra heat/energy was gained without more power, the temperature rise proves the machine works regardless of opinion, though i doubt it would be easy to explain whee the 20 percent air pressure and Volume flow was dissapearing to in your understanding.

Hey don't feel bad, I missed the whole didn't need to increase the heat thing myself, it was the patent office that pointed out, that even with an output temp the same, it must increase the heat to make up for the increased surface area of the loop loosing extra heat compared to an identical unit with the loop shut off. (it's why the analogy was missing from the patent app) so they knew it worked even at zero increase in output as there were no losses that should have occurred.

[sm0ky2]

i was not saying that is dissapeared,.

what i was saying was that it is being A) heated during the loop cycle.

and B) contained (for a duration) in the back side of the archer's loop.

the original test (control) has the loop closed off, say the loop has what? 15% of the volume of the loopless path?

wether it be full or not is irrelevant, because it is not being heated, and the heat energy from the main path of flow is not being split when the loop is closed.

volume 4 liters per minute pours out through the path. at heat X.

open the loop, and (takes an extra minute to heat the fluid in the loop), and the 4 liters per minute comes out hotter than the previous 9 liters. now 15% of the fluid, and thus 15% of the heat energy is sent back through the loop, the device is still outputting 4 liters per minute, as 4 liters per minute are flowing into the intake of the device.

it DOES increase the eficiency of heating the fluid by 20%, by recycling 15% of the heat energy back through the cycle, and (with blatent disregard to heat losses) you do not have to replenish this 15% as long as the system remains in operation (meaning the fluid in the loop isnt allowed to cool back to ambient). I am not saying that this is not a very effiecient method of heating a fluid (by far the best we have seen yet). But i dont see how it changes the maximum energy flow into your working fluid.

First off, the heating device used, even in the labratory testing done by this company, was nothing near 100% efficient at converting electrical energy into heat, or in transfering heat energy into the fluid, also you are adding the energy to move the fluid, and to move the heat (the fan).
a Hair dryer is even less efficient.  so essentially what is being improved here
is the rate of heat transfer into a fluid flowing at a given rate through a given sized container, with a given innefficient heating element.

If you would like to compare mathematics, i can show you that with a perfect heating element (one that can transfer heat to the fluid with 0 loss) that the BTU still holds constant with or without the loop, and that archer's loop has essentially no effect on a perfect system.
with the maximum ammount of energy being converted into heat and transfered into the system by the element, there is no "extra heat" gained by the loop.
the pressure balances out at both ends of the loop (though not so within the loop itself) so it does not effect the actual rate/pressure of flow of the system output.

For an inneficient fluid heating system - this device would be great.

[one]

For those of you who wish to build a test unit of the accelerator for around 50 bux, i will give you instructions now. Please look at the patent app so you understand the basics.

For those who don't fully understand thermodynamics, you do not need to build the most perfect machine to test the laws, as they are set. The rule being (in simple) you can't get more heat out without more energy in, so no matter what your device and how poorly insulated a device is, whatever the maximum temperature the device achieves in output is the maximum for that device. According to thermodynamic laws you cannot get more heat out without more energy in (we will agree for the sake of argument that the ambient input temperature stays the same) The laws say that no mechanical device can make more heat come out of the same device (mechanical being a non powered array or configuration of the same device excluding increasing insulative properties)

Not noted in the Accelerator Patent for deliberate reasons to counter every stupid argument that could ever come up regarding some minuscule reason about planetary alignment or any other horse shit someone may wish to use to say there are reasons why the tables are not correct in this instance. In simple if the heat from the accelerator is the same with or without the loop and forced low pressure effect, then Newton is still beaten!!! Why?? because the surface area and added friction and travel loss of heat through the loop says it should be colder with the accelerator, and that is the very foundation of newtons first regarding energy and heat, that surface area forms part of the heat loss equations and therefor must absolutely be colder if 15 percent is added to the surface area by the addition of the loop, in addition to that, the loop is "not heated" so the loss is even greater than a 15 percent increase in the surface area as those calculations are based on heated surface!!! Newton is most definitely toast.

OK 50 bux

20 dollars, one travel hair dryer, you know the one that looks like a cylinder and the handle collapses, 2 dollar shops and K mart usually have them.

This is of course the fan with element in front, just as in the accelerator.

15 dollars, one multi meter from JayCar or the like that has a thermocouple for reading temperatures quickly and accurately. (bloody cheap for a digital thermocouple aren't they?)

7.50 for an 800mm length of plumbing pipe just large enough to fit the cylinder of the hair dryer in.

7.50 for a 300mm length of pipe 20mm and 2 elbows (electrical conduit) for the loop

5 dollars for fabric tape (used on the cold side)

cut a slot 2.5 time the length of the dryer the width of the drop down handle to slide it in (do not remove the handle) tape evenly over the slot (even tape the cutout back in if you can)

Now drill 2 holes the same size as the elbows so the internal walls (diameter) of the elbows are the same as the holes. The first hole 25 mm away from the intake side of the dryer, and the other one hair dryer length from the outlet side of the dryer, and affix the loop.

Cut a slot in the loop somewhere to insert a thin piece of plastic like from and ice cream container. place the piece in to stop any flow through the loop.

Now turn on the dryer and place the thermo couple probe down inside a few inches from the end of the main outlet and run for  until as hot as it will get, tape the probe in one place so the reading are equally fair. let the unit get cold if you like (max heat is max heat right?)

now remove the piece of plastic and tape the slot and try again and watch the temp rise and rise past the maximum ability of the heater as was previously available.

25 percent of all airconditioning and heating costs throughout the world? I'd call that better than a neat trick.

Have fun

SmOky may have a point  here.     

I didn't  do the  test .   If  there is someone  out there that did ........it should be  easy enough to  find the  real truth .

Just  do the test  again ........  but   In a box  ......and  put the   thermacouple  in a bag of sand or something .

If  Quin  is  right   the bag of sand  should  heat  up faster and   reach a higher  temprature   when   using the feedback loop .


To be fair  to Quins  concept  you might  want to  use   another   elbow or  2  and a  little more pipe to  aim the output  back   at the  hairdrier  intake.


gary

[The Eskimo Quinn]

Hate to burst your bubble but the Picture in the accelerator patent was not the one used , for reasons of patenting separately the one that was as a commercially viable system, and according to the output without the loop was as close to lab condition results as could be obtained.

According to the heatload calculation tables (based by the scientific community on newtons laws and your math)
an 850 watt heating element at 240 volts with an air volume of 60 litres per second in a 1.8 meter tube with a 200 mm diameter constructed of 3mm thick aluminium with no loop and no insulation (so the surface area heat loss table would be accurate) would be optimal at a 15 degree rise from ambient at the outlet end.

This device achieved a 14.7 ambient rise without the loop from 850 watts, that in itself is unheard of in the commercial heating industry as it was high tech thin film carbon element so there was almost no airflow interuption "the perfect heater" then the loop was added and the rise was 20 degrees from ambient.

Your argument cant stand against the fact the owner first designed the perfect heating element for fluid application for me to use, together with a perfect cylinder for airflow and friction reduction, add to that the use of 3mm aluminium reflecting 98 percent of all the heat radiated against it, was one insulated the most perfect design known to exist. once the insulation was added this jumped to 14.9 degrees from ambient without the accelerator, as far as we are aware 15 degrees can not be achieved unless the heater flow chamber was ceramic and the new ambient inside the heater did not sink to the flow chamber case.

If you get all the scientific data charts for what is optimal, you will see that 20C rise from ambient with 850 watts drawing static ambient air is impossible by a long shot at that flow rate and with that surface area. This is not an argument over points of a degree, this smashed the bound of possibility even in a lab.

I can personall send you a copy of the patent app for the heater that was used in the accelerator tests so you can get an idea of why the element and airflow was so perfect. The app has been lodged but i do not have the number back so can't publish it, but can allow private authorised viewing without compromising the patent. I think i have a photo of it inside also.

For those who don't wish to go to the mathematical lengths, ring or email any airconditioning or heating compnay and ask for an airflow heater 850watts max 240 volt and 60 litres per second, that has a 20 percent rise from ambient from the device "not recycled through the house over hours or days" (if you did that with this device you would cook yourself in your sleep)

[The Eskimo Quinn]

To Gary, you don't point the pipe at the back of the dryer, the machine defeated newton because it created dual low pressure systems at that point if you drop it through the pipe you will destroy the artificial version of the venturi effect at the surface area.

Although you did remind me that i left out the short drop through at the alternate end as in the diagram.

The funniest thing is, this is not theory, this is now a working unit at a multimillion dollar global heating company, it's like arguing if a digital television will or won't work. it's already been done.