I What is the most efficient way to cool air using a Vortex Tube (Ranque-Hilsch)?

AI Thread Summary
The paper indicates that the initial separation of hot and cold air in a vortex tube is complete once the flow is deflected backward at the hot end, and further interaction between the streams is undesirable. This interaction leads to a degradation in performance, as the cooled air should ideally return to the cold end without mixing with the hot air. The cooling of the cold stream primarily occurs during the backward deflection, while subsequent interactions dilute its effectiveness. The discussion raises the question of whether alternative methods to extract cold air could minimize this interaction. Additionally, the concept of a double circuit vortex tube appears contradictory if cooling is indeed limited to the initial deflection phase.
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
769
Ref: https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/44/2015/12/VortexTubeOptimizationTheory.pdf

The above paper says that the initial separation of hot and cold air is complete once the flow is partly deflected backwards at the left hand side (HOT) end. See Fig. 1 in the paper.

It also says that the further interaction of the two streams is actually undesirable, and that one would want that process to be like a "weak" or "bad" heat exchanger. So ideally we would want the cooled air (inner stream) to make its way back to the right hand side (COLD) end without any interaction with the outer stream.

So the process of returning the cold air to the right hand side, passing all the way through the tube, actually degrades the performance due to unwanted heat exchange between the inner and outer streams. This idea is elaborated in Fig. 3 of the paper.

My first question is -- is it true that the actual cooling of the cold stream happens entirely during the inward / backward deflection at the far end of the tube, and that all further interaction between the streams is merely an undesired dilution of performance?

Second question -- If the above is true, won't it be better to skim off the cold air in some other way that will keep it more isolated from the warm stream? For example:

1674214767061.jpeg


Or maybe like this:

1674214830497.jpeg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Another point of confusion is that some papers talk about a "double circuit vortex tube". For example, Fig. 7 in this paper: https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/..._for_Resubmission_Without_Mark.pdf?sequence=1

If the answer to my question #1 in the original post is yes, then the double circuit thing doesn't seem to make much sense. The double circuit concept would only make sense if the cooling happens during the interaction between the two streams along the tube.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top