Air pressure vs post-fuel pump vaporization chamber

[Braden T]

My question is harder to explain than I would imagine it will be to answer. I'm trying to vaporize a non-combustible fuel source with an internal radiant coil surrounding a small vaporization chamber consisting of a heat-resistant cotton-like material being fueled by a constant drip fuel pump via a small diameter metal line. Once in gaseous form, the vapor travels through an identical metal line to a chamber where it will be meeting up with 80-140 PSI. When at this junction, will the vapor flow with the high-pressure current, or will the significantly higher pressure cause the vapor and/or the fuel source to back-up? If so, would pressurizing the fuel tank counteract such a problem? I had thought about a unidirectional check valve in the fuel line, but wouldn't the higher pressure keep it closed? Please help!

 

[SteamKing]

How does 'non-combustible fuel' work?

 

[Braden T]

How does 'non-combustible fuel' work?

Seriously? Your reply is solely for the purpose of arguing semantics? Ok, instead of the word "fuel", use "vaporization liquid" instead. Does that work for you? I used the word "fuel" because the desired result is a heated vapor combined with compressed air to pressurize an artificial atmosphere for the purposes of observation and no other simple term seemed to fit the description. Now do you have anything helpful to input?

 

[Bystander]

Hi-P to Low-P --- period --- end of sentence. If the pressure of the fuel is greater than its surroundings it flows toward the lower pressure, and if not it doesn't.

 

[Braden T]

Hi-P to Low-P --- period --- end of sentence. If the pressure of the fuel is greater than its surroundings it flows toward the lower pressure, and if not it doesn't.

So would equally pressurizing the fuel tank, making both sides of the fuel pump Hi-P, solve that problem?

 

[Bystander]

Yes. And, before you ask, "No, a check valve works on the same principle as it ever did; it prevents flow in one direction only."

 

[Braden T]

Yes. And, before you ask, "No, a check valve works on the same principle as it ever did; it prevents flow in one direction only."

I wasn't going to ask because I won't need one if I have equalized pressure and a pump in the fuel line, but thank you for your insight. You've been invaluably helpful.

 

[SteamKing]

Seriously? Your reply is solely for the purpose of arguing semantics? Ok, instead of the word "fuel", use "vaporization liquid" instead. Does that work for you? I used the word "fuel" because the desired result is a heated vapor combined with compressed air to pressurize an artificial atmosphere for the purposes of observation and no other simple term seemed to fit the description. Now do you have anything helpful to input?

Not really. I usually come here to get a dose of attitude.

BTW, displays of attitude are not encouraged here at PF. If you can't answer a question in a civil tone, it will get you in trouble sooner or later.

 

[Braden T]

Not really. I usually come here to get a dose of attitude.

BTW, displays of attitude are not encouraged here at PF. If you can't answer a question in a civil tone, it will get you in trouble sooner or later.

So, according to the information you just gave me, you have nothing useful to add to the thread. Instead, you nitpick about terminology in an attempt to "get a dose of attitude" from people. Then you warn the person you provoked that their tone isn't encouraged. You're an instigator, plain and simple.

 

[SteamKing]

So, according to the information you just gave me, you have nothing useful to add to the thread. Instead, you nitpick about terminology in an attempt to "get a dose of attitude" from people. Then you warn the person you provoked that their tone isn't encouraged. You're an instigator, plain and simple.

I see you have nothing but attitude to contribute here at PF. Keep it up and one of the Mentors will take care of that for you, sooner or later.

When you use unfamiliar terminology here at PF, someone is going to ask you to clarify what you mean. Expect those kinds of questions. If you are not prepared to be patient and explain yourself in terms which are clear, your problems are only going to multiply, and people at PF will not be willing to engage you on these forums. Hurling gratuitous insults will not enhance your reputation at PF.

 

[Braden T]

I see you have nothing but attitude to contribute here at PF. Keep it up and one of the Mentors will take care of that for you, sooner or later.

When you use unfamiliar terminology here at PF, someone is going to ask you to clarify what you mean. Expect those kinds of questions. If you are not prepared to be patient and explain yourself in terms which are clear, your problems are only going to multiply, and people at PF will not be willing to engage you on these forums. Hurling gratuitous insults will not enhance your reputation at PF.

Restating the information you gave to me is considered "nothing but attitude?" And you missed the entire point of the post. Whether it was called "fuel", "vaporization liquid" or "viscous substance of an unknown type", the question was about back-flow of air pressure vs a vaporization chamber with it's only sources of pressure being a liquid being pumped in and the heat required to vaporize it. Your initial response had nothing to do with any of that. Instead, it was merely for your own satisfaction by making someone feel less intelligent than yourself. I hope that worked out for you. My inquiry was solved by a poster who was actually looking to help, regardless of unfamiliar terminology. Have a great day.