Unraveling the Mysteries of WindHexe: How Does it Achieve Dehydration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SkepticJ
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mechanisms and effectiveness of the WindHexe, a device purported to achieve dehydration through a unique process. Participants explore its operational principles, compare it to other grinding methods, and question its practicality and efficiency in various applications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe the WindHexe as functioning similarly to a blender and a blow dryer, utilizing compressed hot air to dry objects by creating pressure and speed, akin to how water pressure works.
  • Others cite a speculation that the device operates by causing particles to collide with each other and the walls, potentially leading to effective grinding.
  • One participant notes that the inventor of the WindHexe does not fully understand its mechanism, which raises questions about its scientific basis.
  • Concerns are raised about the energy efficiency of the device compared to traditional grinding methods, with some suggesting it may be energy-intensive.
  • Participants discuss the potential wear on the device's interior surfaces due to the grinding process, suggesting that durable materials may be necessary to withstand the abrasion.
  • There is a suggestion that the WindHexe could be more of a novelty than a practical solution, particularly when considering the energy return on investment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the effectiveness and practicality of the WindHexe, with no clear consensus on its operational efficiency or long-term viability. Some agree on the potential issues of wear and energy use, while others focus on its innovative aspects.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the device's mechanism and the lack of empirical data to support claims about its efficiency and effectiveness. There are also unresolved questions regarding material durability and energy consumption.

SkepticJ
Messages
243
Reaction score
1
Last edited by a moderator:
Computer science news on Phys.org


According to wikipedia, it's like a blender and a blow dryer. Apparently, compressed hot air dries and "bangs around" the object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windhexe

I also found a decent article about the product.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4723367/

And a quote from that article:

Brooks speculated that what is going on is that the highly pressurized air streams are banging particles together and against the sides of the Windhexe in a speeded-up version of the way lapidaries polish gems in a tumbler.

Other scientists said that as the air is forced down the funnel at the bottom, the pressure and speed have to increase proportionally, the same way a stream of water builds up pressure and shoots out farther from a hose when you put your thumb in the way.
Advertise | AdChoices

“It may just be a very efficient way to knock things into walls very fast,” Brooks concluded. “Fast, but in a gentle way — not like a cannon into a wall.”

No laws of physics being broken as far as I can tell.
 


I had a look at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...,971,594.PN.&OS=PN/6,971,594&RS=PN/6,971,594" and the inventor claims to not know the mechanism by which it works. I guess that's understandable, he's not an engineer by trade, but a farmer.

A backyard inventor came up with something pretty cool.

Still seems weird that it can pulverize stone to a fineness that bests lunar dust. It took meteorite impacts to pull that off!

Someone needs to create a refrigerated air powered version--crush up ice for the finest snow you've ever seen!
 
Last edited by a moderator:


I looked at it, seems legitimate, Snopes is undecided by their forum seems to think it's legitimate. I think the issue really is: without data, how does this stack up against frying everything until it's syngas? Seems like it would be pretty energy intesive to keep that going, and the grit also seems as though it would be devestating to the interior surface at those speeds.

I think SkepticJ has it: it's more cool than it is practical unless you crave regolith.
 


Why would you do that? Its intended purpose isn't in energy production.

The question is how does it stack up against other methods of grinding/chopping things to powder, as far as energy use goes? Longevity could be in its favor--no blades to go dull.

The internal abrasion is a good point. When grinding anything harder than biological materials, the inside should probably be coated in a really hard alloy, or that recently developed shatterproof ceramic.
 


SkepticJ said:
Why would you do that? Its intended purpose isn't in energy production.

The question is how does it stack up against other methods of grinding/chopping things to powder, as far as energy use goes? Longevity could be in its favor--no blades to go dull.

The internal abrasion is a good point. When grinding anything harder than biological materials, the inside should probably be coated in a really hard alloy, or that recently developed shatterproof ceramic.

I think a better question would be: if you can dump your waste and get energy out of the process, why would you do anything else? I could see it being the first stage of a longer process, but on its own I'd be LOOKING for a way to get energy back to run the process in the first place.

The materials, I really don't know; my reaction is that ceramic which withstood the impacts, would still be essentially sandblasted as well. You can use a hard alloy, but then you either add brittlely, or expense.
 


There's really no way to prevent wear over time in something like this. The best one can do is slow it. Even if the inside were lined with a centimeter thick layer of solid diamond, eventually it'd be worn down.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 236 ·
8
Replies
236
Views
17K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K