I am having a problem with vortices

[Stanthe Man]

I have developed an egg shaped device, designed to remove dissolved air from sealed systems. the initial prototypes worked exceedingly well and the unexpected benefit was a really fast heat up and a signifivant energy saving.

the original device was flat topped, with the incoming primary water flowing in vertically, but bent through 90 deg. internally. the one thing we noticed was that during the initial de-aeration process, the removal of air was really quick at 650ml in 2 mins.

Subsequent CFD evaluation has shown that inside the device is a 30 kP pressure drop. when the initial de-aeration started there was no actual water forced from the device, but a further design with a domed top, which was against my better judgement, during initial de-aeration, water was forced out through the air vent and it does not work as fast. no one can explain this. we need to conduct furthe prototyping and need some answers, or advice on which is the best way forward. none if us involved are academics

 

[Stanthe Man]

We need advice, please another mistake will cost a lot of money

 

[anorlunda]

I have a hard time visualizing what you're saying. That makes it hard to offer advice.

Can you post a diagram? Use the UPLOAD button at the bottom right of the post edit window.

 

[some bloke]

I'm visualising this as being stood up like an egg in an egg cup, with the top "chopped off" to produce the flattened part, and the water coming in in a pipe from the side, turning 90° and then falling/being pumped downwards into the device, is that about right?

I don't know how your device is de-aereating the water, whether it is spinning or bubbling or compressing or what. But if the first, flat topped device worked, and the second did not, surely the answer is to further develop the first?

If the difference is purely cosmetic then there should be no reason for the two to function differently - if you only wish to achieve the rounded look, then perhaps a full-egg casing for the flat-topped egg device would be the best approach?

If the difference is not cosmetic, then it could be that the shape of the second device is affecting the pressure inside, or preventing the air from escaping in some way. It's quite difficult to offer any more ideas without something to go on.

If you're concerned about protecting your intellectual property from being copied, you could give us diagrams of the area which is being changed, and the conditions which it is affected by (EG if it is a 5 stage process and this is stage 4, then we would only need to know stages 3,4 and 5, as 1&2 will lad to 3 in both instances).

 

[jrmichler]

If you're concerned about protecting your intellectual property from being copied (or stolen)

You can, if you are in the U.S., file a provisional patent application. For a "micro entity", the filing fee is $70.00. I'm not familiar with the patent rules for the rest of the world. Keep in mind that if somebody here comes up with a change that makes it work, that person becomes a coinventor.

If this is something that you plan to commercialize, you may need a patent. If you will be seeking outside financing, you WILL need a patent. And a provisional patent application is sufficient to get started.