Turbulence in the Pantone reactor?

[lio74]

Hello

When we talk about turbulence in the reactor, I am not talking about helical turbulence around the rod.
...
I think we should have just two turbulent layers without leaving a thin laminar layer,
the exchange of temperature with the walls is much better when it is turbulent.

Hello Andrew,
then you think that there is not a helical circulation of the gas!?! if you say so! I defer to you (who is such a great experimenter)! I will revise my copy ... but it seems to me to have read somewhere that it turned in there ?! well, in any case it simplifies my chimblic to model the flow of the bubbler on admission !!

if not I know this effect of wall, it is what inter alia tears off charged particles, because in theory the fluid (Newtonian and blabla ..) against a wall at the same speed as this wall and the fact that certain particles "s 'tear off' from the wall, this creates a charge (energy condition) and turbulates (geometric contion). in short it is no longer to prove (cf. http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4138/image26tu.jpgdoc given by Bob)
therefore the more the contact surfaces are increased the more charges there are .......
_________________
Lau, your wick at a nice mouth, I understand prkoi you wanted the tested !!
the blue dot on the end do you think that means that it works better ?? or the contrary?? this point is significant of very high temperature, it is there that there will be the reactions of water and fuel mixture!?!
did you feel an improvement compared to a straight rod ???

[Other]

Hello
In a 100% panton assembly, a rectified steel rod left free without a centering stud, there is a helical trace of a fairly regular pitch which corresponds to the radius of the rod and anticlockwise by looking at it. through the reactor entrance. I found this only 2 times on rods and nothing proves that it was not due to something else, since it is free in the reactor it can vibrate rotate and hit the wall
but equally equal grooves? it may be something else, the rods are in polished steel (drill rod)
Now voluntarily forcing this circular movement around the rod give me nothing more on a known assembly that works, (it was quite difficult to make a small sheet metal turbulator in front of the reactor the diameter is 12,7mm)
On my diesel I made it even with the rod which is made of stainless steel and when I put a rod in pure nickel I would make it completely smooth.

As for the color, the blue part of the rod is not the warmest, in a 100% panton the hottest part is located just after the blue part on a 15 mm + or - but it is always at the end of the stem.
the tests carried out a few years ago, consists in taking a hollow rod and putting a thermocouple in the rod in different places
forward in the middle and out, the difficulty was to wedge the thermocouple junction with a rod to make good rod contact.
But still this is only a rough idea of ​​the heat of the rod, nothing says that on the surface it is not hotter than in the middle.
But, there is another way to check if the heat goes to the middle of the rod, it is by these examinations of the temperature of the rod that I seek to establish the minimum length of the rod.
A slight execution of the rod entering the reactor is not harmful, provided that this does not allow the rod to get wet.

You have to wonder why a rod whose entering (cold) part becomes wet makes the reactor nonfunctional? even with insulating liquids like fuel. we must believe that when the rod and covered with a thin layer of liquid it plays more role of friction. Despite the high temperature of the rod, which is clearly higher than the outlet of the (vapor) from the reactor, it can be covered with a thin layer of liquid.
You have to do it very quickly to notice it, as soon as the reactor starts to malfunction, you have to quickly remove the rod to notice that the front part is moisten, 2 minutes after it has time to dry, (this experience easily noticed when running a petrol engine with fuel oil)



Andre

[lau]

did you feel an improvement compared to a straight rod ???

no nothing better, and I would even say less well.

[bolt]

What you need to know when a fluid or more particularly a gas circulates in a conduit, there is an effect of walls, that is to say that on the surface of the conduit there is friction, the fluid wants to stick to the wall and on this thin layer, the fluid circulates in a turbulent way, it is only in the middle of the duct that the circulation is laminar.
This turbulent circulation depends on several factors, nature of the smooth or rough wall, the speed of the flow, the viscosity of the fluid and the diameter of the duct.
In the case of the reactor we have the reactor walls and the rod walls, so two zones of thin turbulence, if the air gap is small, or the rough or contaminated walls there can be no laminar flow between these two layers.
I think we should have just two turbulent layers without leaving a thin laminar layer,
the exchange of temperature with the walls is much better when it is turbulent.
Andre

Hello
In a laminar flow, the speed of the fluid goes from zero speed against the wall at maximum speed as far as possible from the walls (for a reactor) (or at the center of a cylindrical duct), equal to 2 times the average speed (the average speed = that which is calculated in relation to the flow). The flow paths are parallel to the axis
So, indeed, the molecules which pass "far" from the walls remain "far" throughout the path, and therefore take less heat than those which "brush" against one of the walls

In a turbulent flow, the speed is still zero salary. the wall, but it's already getting very high very close to it, but in the middle of the walls we don't have much more than 1,2 times the average speed

example of calculation concerning the upstream and downstream pipes of the reactor:
Reactor: rod: 12.7; tube: 15; lg: 20 cm
Steam flow: 7 m3 / h (dynamic viscosity: approx 15 * 10-6kg / ms; density: approx 1.2 kg / m3 (steam temp: 100 ° C and pressure approx 0.95 atm))
Reactor pressure drop: 37.7 mbar (approx 37.7 cm of water)
section (rod / tube space): 50.03784 mm²
inner diameter of a tube of equivalent section: 7.98185 mm
I suppose the same flow downstream of the reactor (it is undoubtedly higher in reality since the volume increases with the temperature) that gives us a pressure drop of 7,39 mbar (for 20 cm of lg) or 5.1 times less than in the reactor for the same passage section
And in this case we have (except temperature) the same speed of the fluid: about 140 km / h

We can have fun doing a calculation to have the same linear pressure drop in the downstream pipe as in the reactor: this gives an internal pipe diameter of 5,788 mm, and tjs for 7 m3 / h, the speed (for the same linear pressure drop) would then be 266 km/h
The electrification by flow would be stronger in the downstream tube than in the reactor
With the 7,98 mm tube, we already have a much more turbulent regime than in the reactor, and it is even more so with the 5,7888 mm tube

On the other hand, if we take another example: it seems that it is better to have a gap of 0,5 mm:
stem: 15; tube 16 int. ; lg: 20 cm; pressure drop: 37.99 mbar
which allows a steam flow of 2 m3 / h (no more or we deviate too much from the possible vacuum with the suction of the engine)
diam for section eq: 5,57 mm, but linear pressure loss 8,6 times less: 4.41 mbar
for the same linear pressure drop we can go down to 3,6247mm inside (lives in this case: 194 km / h)
With our 12/14 tubes there is therefore no pressure drop, but no speed either, and perhaps no electrification by flow either in this tube

Let's return to the annular space of 0,5 mm anyway: in the case described above with the 16/15 reactor and 2 m3 / h steam, contrary to what one might think, there is no turbulent flow: Reynolds number: 1825 (less than 2000), while in the downstream tube diam 5,57 we have 10164 and in diam 3,6247 we have 15612
(kelp <2000

note that with Example 15 / 12,7; 7m3 / h, it's turbulent: 7150
7 m3 / h in diam 7,981: 24814
7 m3 / h in diam 5,788: 34219 for number of Reynolds

What to think of all this?
bolt

[Other]

Hello, Bolt

If I understand your calculations, there is an air gap favorable to turbulence.
0,5mm no turbulence and 1mm turbulence.
what happens with 1,5 mm? like SPAD
I have good knowledge in aerodynamics but a little less in flow of fluids in conduits although this is a little
I was convinced that on a smooth surface there is a thin layer, which remains stuck on the surface the other thin layer becomes turbulent and the rest in principle is laminar
Observation made on an airplane wing when I fly in the snow
a very thin layer remains stuck on the wing despite a speed of 230kmh, It may not be a good comparison, the shape of the wing promotes this, sometimes I stick rows of wool to see the reaction of the air in different flight configuration)

Back to the reactor I would have thought that with a 2mm air gap for a very smooth reactor we would have divided into
a turbulent layer on the reactor a turbulent layer on the rod and between the two a thin laminar layer.
And that with a tight clearance of 0,5 mm we simply had two turbulent layers.

It would be good to determine which is the right game to adopt
there are several constraints that limit us in our choices

Few clearances, i.e. 0,5 mm, limit passage through the reactor, but promote friction and heat exchange
A large 1,5mm gap promotes flow, but limits friction and heat exchange.
In this order of reasoning we could make a reactor composed of 25 conduits of 1,6mm internal diameter, without putting a rod. this gives more outside surface for the exchange with the exhaust gases.




Andre

[bob_isat]

The electrification by flow would be stronger in the downstream tube than in the reactor

Electrification by flow is not a function of speed alone. The fluid-wall contact surface is also large.

In the reactor, it is important because the fluid rubs both on the tube and on the rod.

It also seems that temperature is its role to play. (I have a "contact" who must pass me studies on the electrification by friction of water vapor)

The reactor would therefore bring together high speed, large contact surface and high temperature, all that is necessary for large electrification ...

[bolt]

Hello
According to theory, the flow is according to the Reynolds number, laminar or turbulent (see my post above)
And this Reynolds number is proportional to the average velocity of the flow in the pipe considered
It is also proportional to the cross section of the fluid
"" "" to the density of the fluid
"" "" to the dynamic viscosity of the fluid
But he is Conversely proportional to perimeter of the fluid passage section

However, this perimeter is minimum in the case of a round pipe (hollow in it as the Belgians would say) compared to the passage section
But it can have a very strong influence on the Reynolds nb in the case of a reactor with a very small air gap: the perimeter can hardly double, but the passage section can decrease enormously in relation to the friction perimeter

While reflecting on what is beneficial for us: would it not be by chance laminar flow, I explain:
In a laminar flow the fluid is at zero speed against the 2 walls (in our case: the reactor: tube wall and rod wall), and at maximum speed, which is double the average speed (in our case: halfway between the tube and the rod) (whereas it would only be approx. 1,2 times higher in a turbulent flow)
But the most interesting in laminar is that the flow paths are parallel to the axis without mixing, which implies that the layer against the tube goes very slowly compared to that which is halfway between the 2 walls and can therefore to have time to take a lot of calories from this wall and become very very hot relative to the layer "fast" and what happens when hot air slides over cold air (er less hot (or vice versa)
: thunderstorm of course

and in principle there is even the humidity that goes with it

Maybe this phenomenon cannot happen in a turbulent flow (it is even logical seen like this no

And as the Reynolds number is proportional to the speed of the fluid, it may be that when it works at an average speed, the fact of accelerating at full speed would cause the reactor to stall having only the change of the laminar regime in turbulent regime

What do you think of this reflection
bolt

[Other]

Hello,
It may be an explanation to the fact, which bothers me
when the outlet pipe is reduced and therefore the suction in the reactor less gas passage and probably slower
the system improves? and this observation goes against the logic of the operation of the reactor, At the beginning I thought that it could be the conduit itself, but just a restriction gives approximately the same effects.
This means that when the venturi makes a great depression in the intake one finds oneself to increase the speed in the reactor, and if there is a critical speed to make function the reactor, that will pose problem.
In my reasoning on the size of the outlet conduits it is mainly the effect of the relaxation of the fluid which leaves the reactor which concerned me, as for the condensation at the outlet of the reactor, with the tests made this winter by very cold pipe thermally insulated and pipe cooled, I did not notice a notable difference (unlike a 100% panton the simple fact of cooling the panton outlet the engine collapses)
I stopped comparing that it is the stem, the air gap, the length
the anteroom, everything is different, the only principle that there is in common is the rod tube, as I think that water doping there is no serious study known that has been done, everything is to be discovered, and currently we can only base ourselves on what is known, to arrive to improve it is necessary to start from a system which (works) whether it is at 10% or at 30% and to modify according to
what you want to prove, not by accident or by chance.

In all the assemblies the rod and tubes are more or less similar, only the depressions therefore the flow velocities and the temperatures in play differ.
What is most urgent to find is a way to measure when the reactor is working and why it does not always work when all the conditions are met stable driving on the highway, it had to operate all the time but it is not the case, (the only guide is the feeling of driving and ultimately the passage to the pump which somehow gives an average of the proper functioning of the reactor).

Andre

[bolt]

Good evening
If we assume that I am right (not sure) If it turns out that your reactor works with a number of Reynolds between 2000 and 4000, it is normal that it does not work all the time since in theory when we have a number of Reynlods between 2000 and 4000 (or 6000 according to certain theorists) they say that in this case the flow is sometimes laminar, sometimes turbulent, without knowing why for example, it would be turbulent at 2100 and laminar at 3900 (or 5900), there is no rule, it's like when you empty a sink, sometimes it makes a vortex, sometimes not
Would the Coriolis effect have its importance on a reactor according to the direction it has when driving as well as the speed that we will
It seems that the Coriolis effect is insignificant for the vortex of the sink which empties, but just a drop of water for, as we say
bolt

[bob_isat]

According to the publications available on Interent, electrification by flow is 4 to 5 times more important in the case of a turbulent flow.

It is true that when we do the Reynolds nb calculations (for example with André's data) we fall not far from 2000, the border between laminar and turbulent ...