Vacuum pump and creation of vacuum

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter McQueen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Creation Pump Vacuum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the creation of a vacuum using a piston vacuum pump, exploring the energy requirements and efficiency of such pumps compared to historical methods. Participants examine the implications of air versus water in terms of weight and energy needed for evacuation, as well as potential advancements in pump technology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant discusses the theoretical energy efficiency of creating a vacuum compared to removing water, citing historical experiments by Otto Von Guericke.
  • Another participant mentions the existence of lightweight diaphragm pumps that can achieve low pressures with significantly lower power consumption.
  • Concerns are raised about the vagueness of initial comparisons between air and water, questioning the relevance of historical anecdotes and the terminology used.
  • A participant emphasizes the importance of the mass difference between air and water in understanding energy requirements for pumping, arguing that modern pumps should be more efficient than historical methods.
  • There is a suggestion that advancements in materials like graphite and Teflon could lead to significant reductions in power consumption for vacuum pumps.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the practical application of modernizing historical experiments, questioning the relevance of the discussion to current technology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance of historical context, the efficiency of modern vacuum pumps, and the implications of air versus water in energy calculations. There is no consensus on the energy requirements or the significance of the historical references made.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of vacuum creation and the varying definitions of efficiency and power consumption. The discussion includes assumptions about the performance of modern technology compared to historical methods, which remain unresolved.

Is it easier and faster to create a vacuum of 1 Torr in the 21st. Century than it was

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • Yes, but it would need more energy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Yes, with a fraction of the energy

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • Total voters
    7
  • #31
I have got confirmation of sorts in the form of a pump that works at 1000 m3 h. (Which works out to 16.6 m3minute). with a power consumption of 1.5 Kw and pumps down to 10 -4 mbar which is much above 1 Torr (1.3mbar). To clarify, although the motor rating is about 5 Kw the power consumption is 1.5 Kw. Considering that the hypothetical problem set here was for a 7 cubic metre tank (i.e., about 2.5 times less than 16.6 cubic metre), and a final pressure of 1 Torr against 10-4 mbar. Which is about 10 -6 Torr. I think the original figure I had given of a power consumption of about 250 W is well within limits. Still nothing like taking practical measurements as you had stated. Thanks for the input.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
And how much energy is required to evacuate your hypothetical 7m3 tank? (the PV value). What running time for your motor would this represent and at what power??

There still seems to be (units) confusion as to whether you are talking about Energy or Power. A given power of motor can supply as much energy as you want, by running it for the appropriate time. Are you, perhaps, referring to the Power needed to maintain this 1Torr, once it's been reached?

Have you actually measured the power consumption of the 5kW rated motor? What method did you use? A real Power or Watt-Hour Meter - or just V and I? Where do you get your "250W" from? I should have expected the power from the motor to start high and then to reduce to a steady value - is that what happened?
When people describe the observations they have made on these forums, you can never be sure whether they have the whole of the CERN facilities or a Multimeter from Maplin haha.

You can see why Peer - Reviewed papers are required before the establishment will accept evidence to support any theory. We could be talking at completely cross purposes (all too common, I find - and it's not always my fault :wink:).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K