Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can someone please review this!

  1. Dec 21, 2009 #1
    I've made something...it's a very VERY simple device to store pressurized fluid without requiring constant energy input...i.e required energy is fed once to pressurize the fluid.


    I've attached 2 pdfs, one with the main text content, other with the corresponding images as stated in the text.

    Sorry for the low quality images, did it to reduce size.

    I needed an opinion on this, it's utility and all. Thanks.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 21, 2009 #2
    Hummm...4 views no responses.

    That means no one's able to understand what it is. Am I right?
     
  4. Dec 21, 2009 #3

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What is the purpose? Fir all I see it is an accumulator. What benefit do you see?
     
  5. Dec 21, 2009 #4
    It can be used to reduce the height of water tanks, various medical applications where a piston cylinder is used.

    It can be used to pressurize fuel and eliminate the pump involved...this can be quiet an advantage in small engines where adding a pump is not feasible.

    Gaseous fuels will maintain constant pressure using this (CNG)

    Might be firefighters will like it.

    In various fluid sprays (for pesticides e.g.).
     
  6. Dec 21, 2009 #5
    dE_logics,

    What you propose looks like this;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_floating_roof_tank
    or this;
    http://www.dynaglass.com.sg/industrial/industrial05.html [Broken]

    The "floater" has hollow pontoons around the perimeter which allow it to float on the stored liquid. Such roofs are intended to contain vapors which would otherwise be lost to the atmosphere. They are made as light as possible since their purpose is not to pressurize the stored liquid.

    Any extra mass (such as you propose) in a floating roof would be inefficient since it would increase the energy required to fill the tank and not all of that energy will be recovered in the form of fluid pressure when the liquid is released from the tank (due to friction between the roof perimeter and the tank shell).

    .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  7. Dec 21, 2009 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, it means you posted it in the middle of the night, Monday, and again while people were at work on Monday morning....
    You've been asking related questions for several months now - what is the point of all of this? Do you believe you've invented something here? You haven't. It's just a weighted piston - an accumulator, as Fred said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_accumulator#Raised_weight

    The only difference between yours and what is in the wiki is instead of a piston-cylinder, you use a flexible bladder. But the functionality is identical.

    Also, as a general critique - you've obviously put some thought into this, but you have come nowhere close to explaining what you intend this device to do and why. You'll need to get much more specific about the intended function and benefits in order to pique anyone's interest (presumably, you are trying to invent something to commercialize?). You need to be able to explain exactly:

    1. What this device does.
    2. What device currently fulfils the function - ie, what you will replace.
    3. What the benefit is.

    Again, you need to be able to give people exact answers to these questions. Ie, in your op you said: "it's a very VERY simple device to store pressurized fluid without requiring constant energy input". Give an example that tells us exactly how much fluid is being stored for a specific task, how much pressure it is under, how much energy is being saved, etc. Just saying that it saves energy (and btw, the way the sentence is worded implies a misunderstanding of how pressure works....) doesn't tell us anything of real value. Ie, a balloon stores energy too - so what?

    So again: you need to develop your idea much more completely to get people to respond with anything more than "so what". And pretty pictures ain't it - you need calculations and real-world examples. So even if you haven't made anything unique or useful here, use this as an exercise to learn how to present an idea. Pick one of those potential uses (a good one...) and develop it. Perhaps the fire pump. How much water will you store? At what pressure? What does this do for you (using numbers)? Will it save energy? How much? Versus what? Will it make for a shorter elevated tanks? How much shorter? Since your shorter tank is heavier than a taller tank, why is it better (using numbers)?

    Right now all you have is a vague idea of what you want it to do. You need to be much more specific if you want anyone to care.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2009
  8. Dec 21, 2009 #7
    No, they are different I think, here the main concept is component 2; BTW they are not meant for storing pressure, here this is the main purpose; so fluid needs to be fed at pressure to lift the weight...alternatively the weight can be lifted slowly...I've mentioned that in the original documents.

    Yes, it will be inefficient, primarily cause of 2's property not the friction between the weight and the walls...here the walls are optional in the first place and I've shown a bearing arrangement in Fig 12 which will reduce the friction greatly.

    The wights can be replaced with constant force springs.

    Yes, I know, this was one of it's purpose for it's making. Replacing the piston with a flexible bladder will will make the thing require less precision for manufacturing since the junction between the piston and cylinder needs to be sealed yet less on friction and it will degrade with time so needs constant attention; this will improve on these things at least by a bit.

    I've modified the formal documents so as to post here...the original one explains all this and has a few more images.

    No, it does not save energy, but compared to a piston cylinder arrangement, it will by a small amount...aaaa...it should not matter that much considering the applications here.


    Thanks for the advices.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. Dec 21, 2009 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If you don't want to tell us what the point is, that's your prerogative, but then that means these threads you start will continue to be useless.
     
  10. Dec 22, 2009 #9
    Ok then, thanks for the help...it does have advantages over a few this.


    The reason why I chose to make this cause I do not have any resources around to make other more complex stuff (like a circular engine...it's approved by engineers, but of course I cant make it with scarcity of things around); so this will give me a head start.
     
  11. Dec 22, 2009 #10
    I've decided to rename the thing to "plastic bladder accumulator"...thanks for notifying me of the accumulates.
     
  12. Dec 23, 2009 #11

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You know, accumulators using a bladder already exist...

    I read your first post shortly after it appeared, and was confused. I assumed I was missing something, as it just seemed you'd discovered a hydraulic accumulator, so I didn't reply.

    Anyway, fair play for putting some effort into the 'invention' but in line with the others, I think you need to be a lot more descriptive about the purpose, workings, and design considerations of this 'invention'. Or divert your effort into studying existing machines, mechanisms, and the engineering science supporting them, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
     
  13. Dec 23, 2009 #12
    I did not find any prior art...I did ask and search.

    I've highly modified the original docs here to be brief...of course, I need to develop more, I know that.
     
  14. Dec 23, 2009 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, the concept is so old and so basic, it wouldn't appear in a recent patent search. If it ever even was patentable, it would have expired many decades (centuries?) ago.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2009
  15. Dec 24, 2009 #14
    That might be possible...the thing is too simple...but that's not an issue when filing a patent.


    Point is, this thing is not being used anywhere (so it should qualify officially) still it does have advantages. These will be the claims for instance -

    1) A pressure storage device using a plastic bladder as component 2.
    2) Force application by any means on the plastic bladder with the motive of providing the fluid pressure.


    Compared to all current accumulators, this thing has advantage of being extremely simple and very cheep, this can practically replace pumps everywhere; being cheep and more reliable.


    Anyway, I'll give it a shot and see. People apply patent for stuff like stapler pin removes and a "bed sheet tensioner" (this patent actually does exist) which is actually a simple clip arrangement to fix the bed sheet onto the mattress firmly.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2009
  16. Dec 24, 2009 #15

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'll bite.

    How does this replace a pump?
     
  17. Dec 25, 2009 #16
    The attached documents will answer.

    I've improved it.

    The invention could have been made more complex (as I though previously) if the plastic bag 'bulged' under conditions of low fluid; but that will not happen :frown:.
     

    Attached Files:

  18. Dec 25, 2009 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I highly doubt that that is true.
    We know what it is already....
    There is certainly no way it could replace pumps in more than a few situations.
     
  19. Dec 25, 2009 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Unless you apply external power to move the weight, it can't replace a pump.....but of course, then it is a pump! The big problem, though, is that it isn't continuous. It has to be "recharged" periodically. In a very large fraction of applications where you would use a pump, this device would be vastly inferior.

    I really don't think you've thought this through adequately. It would help a lot if you picked an actual application and applied this device to it to see if it actually makes sense. Do some calculations. Prove your claims! Engineers don't like naked claims.
     
  20. Dec 25, 2009 #19
    Yes, the recharge can be done using a small motor, as compared to a pump, the power of the motor can be fractional (but it will take time to refill it).

    Of course, this wont completely replace pumps...there are many disadvantages; but at a few places it can. Generally it can be said that it will replace the pump if the it is transferring fluid form a man made reservoir; instead the whole reservoir can be put at pressure.

    As for suction pumps, it's only advantageous when the fluid has lots of potentially clogging particulates.

    I do not know exactly what to derive here...pressure was the only thing.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2009
  21. Dec 25, 2009 #20
    I thought of a very 'funky' application.

    How bout running vehicles on 'air'? Pressurized air can be filled in this (highly pressurized) and the pressure can be used to move the piston (of the reciprocating 'engine') to power the vehicle.

    Although we will need special single stroke engines for this, but it can be useful when you're just moving around the town...just close by. A small low power battery replacement.

    It's called a "compressed air vehicle".
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2009
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook