1bobwhite

insane_alien, Please carefully consider the first experiment again. For your stipulation, just remove the bag so that when your blow into the tube, the carbon dioxide freely mixes with the air that was in the container. You'll still end up with the container at the higher pressure without being able to demonstrate the partial pressure. Lets say the gauges are located one on top and one on the bottom so that when CO2 is very slowly introduced, is stratifies on the bottom because of its greater density. Now the CO2 is on the bottom, and air is on the top. The pressures will both read the same even though the smaller amount of CO2 is totally over the bottom gauge. Now shake up the container so that the gasses mix, you'll still have the same total pressure on both gauges. Next through one opening force in some soda water so that a pool of it is on the bottom, close off the valve, and notice the gauge readings are still equal even though one is submerged under soda water. Even as the soda water is further pressurizing the container, you will notice that the gauges will be equal throughout the whole exercise. Now rotate the container so that the other gauge is submerged, and you'll still notice that the gauges are reading equal. This experiment covers all of your objections, and can be done and verified by anyone. Partial pressures CANNOT be experimentally demonstrated. And if you say they can, PROVE IT! By any source, by any repeatable test apparatus. You say I'm am ignoring the facts. As I challenged you before, show me the testing equipment and test data from ANY source, especially the ones you are alluding to when you say And this is the place to explore and examine these so called facts you cite, and also when I carefully try to explain my position concerning the validity of this patent, which is the topic of this thread. Respectfully, Bob

Skye, No, In this scenario, chamber 1 has the steam, chamber 2 has the ambient air at 68 deg F. Regards, Bob Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMr Skeptic, In your example, several things are at play. I'll use a two liter container of soda, if I don't drink it first, but it was topped off with helium to maintain the fizz. The evaporation and condensation depend on both temperature and pressure. And total pressure, not just the supposed partial pressure of the water vapor. The dissolved CO2 is a chemical association that is total pressure sensitive not just the supposed partial pressure of CO2. And the helium boosted the total pressure to help keep the CO2 from disassociating from the water.

insane_alien, That is not true. What my demo was showing is that it doesn't matter what element of gasses are involved, if they are mixed, it is impossible to tell experimentally which gas is giving which pressure. If in your example, if you add one volume of gas, then of course it will increase the contained pressure, and conversely subtracting it will reduce that pressure, but you cant tell which one is causing the pressure when they are mixed. In my demo, the first scenario had one gas separated by the bag membrane. It was not even coming into contact with the container wall to exert its pressure and yet it caused the contained pressure to increase as if it was present and impinging upon the wall. So which gas is causing which pressure? Both chambers read the same pressure, which they would if they were mixed. You cant tell can you, since they are both providing pressure, yet one is not touching the wall. It took up a volume that caused an increase in pressure. Its the gas volume that causes the pressure, and not its chemical element difference. If you add one mole of gas, it will increase pressure by that amount. Could care less if it is oxygen, nitrogen, whatever and you cant tell which one it is anyway. I'll try it your way. Lets say the container has a pressure of 100 psi.of air. If the nitrogen is at 70% or a partial pressure of 70 psi, and oxygen is at 20% or a partial pressure of 20 psi, plus the rest at 10% or 10 psi, then these partial pressures add to 100 % or 100psi, correct? 70+20+10=100 psi Refer to the attached illustration. Now correct me if I'm wrong, the 70 psi nitrogen area would flow to the lower pressure areas until their pressures equalized, correct? And in doing so the nitrogen pressure would lower because of expansion, correct? So now the nitrogen is at a lower pressure, correct? The same for the oxygen at 20 psi, expanding into the other gas area of 10 psi, correct? What is the resultant overall pressure of the container? Is it still 100 psi? How can you possibly have two or more different pressure areas within the same envelope without this equalization? You cant' and that is the reason you cannot have partial pressures. Ok, here is my challenge to you and anyone else that may read this thread. For proving Daltons Law, show me the experimental apparatus and procedural data for this conformation and evidence you referred to, or where I may find this so that I may see for myself what you are talking about. Not mathematical formulas and equations, but hardware and experimental procedure. Bob

Mr Skeptic, My patent is intended to be a generic patent that applies to any exchanger of energy, not just heat. The heat exchanger shown is used as a generic example to make claims for the patenting process, even though it may be a useable design for some application. Steam was not mentioned because it is specific to water, whereas the terms used are vapors, boiling, condensing, reheating, to describe actions of many volatile liquids that may be used in the device for purposes that dont necessarily involve heating and cool but for the condensation action. For instance the condensation of precious vapors of agents used in the perfume/fragrance industries. Bob. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedinsane_alien, The topic of saturation is an involved one especially when steam and air mixes are concerned. But in the steam tables I use, the definition is; Saturated Steam is pure steam at the temperature that corresponds to the boiling temperature of water at the existing pressure. The tables are the numbers for pure saturated steam, not with any other contained gases. The publication goes into the charts and graphs for descriptions for air in the system, how to handle the other gases, flash steam, etc, and the other aspects of steam that we need to know. The objection I have with their explanations of heat exchangers, is in using the numbers from the steam tables for saturated steam to explain conditions that occur with steam that is not in saturation. Also these pin finned heat exchangers described in my patent are directly related to the subject of steam, and air/steam mixtures in heat exchangers and how to improve their function. Bob

insane_alien, Now to address what is really happening with air/steam mixtures, as I see it. Once again bear with me as I wade through this explanation of why I say the interpretation of the data is incorrect. Using the similar test arrangement, but instead of having pressure gauges, temperature probes are used, and instead of the gasses, steam is in chamber 1, and air is in chamber 2. For the beginning of the test, the chamber pressures are at atmosphere. Now at rest without steam, the temperatures are the same in both chambers. When the steam valve is opened to chamber 1, 100 psi pure saturated steam at 328 degrees F. is introduced which expands the bag until the trapped air equalizes the pressure, at which point the steam ceases to enter, and the valve is closed. Initially chamber 1 is at 328 deg.F, and chamber 2 is 68 deg. F. Progressively as latent heat is given up upon condensation of the steam on the bag wall, sensible heat is conducted through the bag wall so that the air is heating up as the steam is cooling. Since the steam was already at saturation, condensation procedes as the temperature cools, until all of the steam has condensed and the bag is collapsed. The temperature readings at this point will be for chamber 1, the steam condensate temperature corresponding to the pressure that was developed by the heating and expanding of the air in chamber 2, but lower than the initial 328 deg F. Chamber 2 temperature will have increased until no more heat could transfer from the bag. Now the heated air is in contact with the outer chamber wall so that it transfers its heat to the wall to be convected away on the outside of the wall. Its temperature is lower than the initial input of 328 deg. F. by an amount depending how much air was involved. This model represents what happens when air in the steam system "blanks out" and prevents the steam from transferring its latent heat directly to the vessel wall. As little as 5 % air can do this. The next scenario is done without the bag. Now without the bag, 100 psi pure saturated steam is introduced until flow stops, which means the intermixed air and the steam are at the same pressure. The air temperature increased and the steam temperature decreased without condensation because of the warming airs ability to hold moisture. Condensation wont occur until both the air and the steam are at saturation for that temperature. Now the rate of heat transfer through the vessel wall will depend on the sensible heat conducting through. The hot air and the steam molecules are both impinging upon the wall and releasing their heat. When steam collides with a cooler surface and gives up its latent heat, its molecules collapse in volume and form a nearly instantaneous vacuum. This action could be thought of as popcorn poping in reverse. Going from a large kernal to a small seed. This vacuum then draws in more steam molecules that in turn collapse and give up their heat. If the air is at say 30 % by volume then its molecules are hitting the wall 30% of the time, but blocking the steam molecule in the process for that 30 % of the time. But air only gives up its sensible heat, and moves away, whereas steam when it contacts the wall gives up its sensible heat and its latent heat, but in the process it collapses by a significant amount thereby creating a "vacuum" that instantly draws in the next steam molecule. Even though the temperature of both the air and the steam are the same within the vessel, the rate of heat transfer is reduced proportionally to the amount of air present because of this action of blocking of the steams condensation, with the result of a lower sensible heat at the outside of the exchanger. See the image illustration of boundary layer action. I hope this explanation helps. Bob

Mr Skeptic, Yes it is my patent, and steam was my main concern for developing it. Have you ever heard of "heat pipes". Do you know how they work? The main premise for the patent was to take advantage of the fact that energies propagate back and forth through what is called the boundary layer at rates that have the inverse square rate of transfer. All energies of propagate in this manner. My design for the exchanger is to make the fin radiating material also follow this inverse square rate as close as possible so that for instance the larger surface contact area of the fin would sink the heat the fastest because of its greater mass and the larger surface contact area and transfer that heat up into the fin at the fastest rate possible by conduction. As the heat is progressing up the fin it is also being cooled by the largest fin area at the base. The further up the fin, the lesser amount of heat has progressively less and less surface area to ideally match the amount of heat left to transfer, until approaching ambient, when it becomes uneconomical to have any more pin material. This entire fin shape follows the inverse square curve also to keep the greatest temperature differential for a longer time, which keeps the heat transfer rate higher for a longer time. If you follow the patent, these shapes may be on either side or both (inside and outside) of an exchange system to speed up the rate of transfer of heat. Particularly in steam systems, they promote both the formation of steam and on the condensation end they promote the condensation of the steam. By this speed up of reactions, an increase in the rate of energy transfer is obtained, and thereby reducing the amount of energy for heating or cooling. Bob

Does anyone have names, or programs, or sources of funding names for these research and or development projects? I would really like to know because I have plans to take advantage of them when I find them. One that I had heard of a few years ago was BMW that was toting a steam assisted system for its IC engines, but that project was abandoned recently. Some years ago now Union Pacific was talking of reviving one of their steam turbine locomotives for some trials. That was during the oil embargo days. Nothing has happened yet. Where are all the big guys with their big money for this research? In the power plant area where steam is the big deal, the most recent study for improvements was the Eddystone project to develop a supercritical steam powered generating facility in the 1960s. It is now over 40 years from startup of production, and in its fourth generation of development with over 800 units worldwide. It is to date the most efficient generation system in the world. Thats 40 year old technology. Where are the today improvements? Where are the spinoffs to smaller systems, and applications such as engines? How about home co-generation plants? If any groups would take advantage of steam engines or steam powered prime movers, to reduce their fuel costs it would be the railroads and the trucking industry. Fairly recently a relative of mine was the director of a test facility for the DOT. At this facility, they tested all kinds of concepts for improving the railroad industry. Jet engines, electrics, mag lev, turbine, everything except steam was given trials for testing. Why not steam? Being that it was a government facility, who knows why the lobbists were getting the funding for their companies research, but it wasn't the steam power groups. My overall point is; the powers that be like to keep the status quo, because they're making money, and steam powered things would be a threat to their bottom line. Bob

I am really sorry that I touched a raw nerve. If you will please bear with me as I go through the explanations of my statements, it would really help. First, I believe the numbers of the steam tables are good and accurate and are proven through all of the calculations. On one issue; Dalton's Law, I wish for you to consider an illustration that I will present. The image I will use is of a test arrangement that anyone may construct to demonstrate what I am about to describe. It is a closed vessel or rigid envelope, inside of which are two chamber areas. Chamber 1 area inside the vessel has attached to its incoming pipe, a loose collapsed bag that will contain gas #1, which will be carbon dioxide from your breath, the rest of the area is chamber 2 in which is gas #2 which is just plain air. Pressure gauges are attached so that they will read each chambers pressure independently. Now first, with both of the chamber areas closed off by the valves, and no other paths for the gasses to move, the pressure readings of both gauges will be the same. Chamber 1 volume will be a small percentage of the total, and chamber 2 volume will be the remaining. Next, open the valve for chamber 1 and blow breath into its chamber. You will notice that the pressure of both gauges increase as you increase breath pressure. Chamber 1 volume has increased to a much higher percentage of the total chamber volume, with a corresponding decrease of chamber 2s volume, and both chambers gauges will read the same pressure. Now, close off the valve so that the higher breath pressure remains in chamber 1. Now just a few questions. 1. Is chamber 1 pressure the same as chamber 2 pressure? 2. Is chamber 1 volume a percentage of the total volume? 3. Is chamber 1 gas a different gas than chamber 2? 4 Does chamber 1 gas at its smaller percentage of volume have the same pressure as chamber 2 gas? 5. If the membrane of the bag was removed so that the gasses intermingled and uniformly blended, would there be any change in the overall contained pressure? And one final question, since these two different gasses had the same pressures throughout the experiment, how can it be determined by experiment that they each have a different partial pressure? Conclusion: Daltons Law cannot be demonstrated and verified by experiment. However for calculation purposes, Daltons Law works very well for ideal gasses. For steam though other factors are at work as I will go through in my next post.

It was the internal combustion engines (Henry ford), and the supporting petroleum industry (J.D. Rockefeller) that fiqured out a way to utilize the waste byproduct of refining crude for kerosene. Gasoline was a nuisance byproduct in the beginning. Adolph Diesel had just come out with his engines also. So it was between all of them and their marketing strategies along with the world wars and the demand for new engines of all types, that turned the momentum away from steam and toward internal combustion. Diesel engines replaced the steam engines in the railroads, and industry as the prime movers. Gasoline engines replaced steam engines, in the automotive, and other industrial applications as rapidly as could be economically done. With the result, that nearly every application of steam power for power production was gone within fifty years. Some areas however never changed because steam is still the best way of converting heat energy to power. The powerplants, nuclear powered ships, and most large processes still use steam because of its excellent properties. The research monies very early were going toward internal combustion, so that within fifty years we went from the Wright brothers airplane with twelve horsepower, to supersonic aircraft with thousands of horsepower. And yes there were a few steam powered aircraft.

Yes let's reinvent the steam engine. It is about time to get familiar with the potentials of steam powered equipment. Has anyone considered that the Space Shuttle is a steam powered machine. Not counting the solid rocket fuel boosters, the Shuttle is launched on a steam powered engine system. Liquid oxygen, plus liquid hydrogen, combined releasing tremendous power levels when ignited and exhausted as steam. But back on the ground, some of the steam engines of yesteryear were quite sophisticated for their day. With the coming together of the petroleum and the auto industries, the momentum and funding money went their direction and not in the steam direction, as a consequence, new designs and engineering were not going into steam things, because steam was being abandoned by nearly every aspect of industry in favor of internal combustion engines of all types. Trying to resurrect these old time engines, even with modern materials does not solve all the engineering problems associated with them. New engineering and thinking is needed to make steam powered vehicles, prime movers, and machines of all types. More on this later. Bob.

In the search for the proposed gravity waves, I have not come across anything to date of any repeatable evidence from any source to indicate their existence. What I am proposing here is an attempt to induce waves upon this gravity field. It has been demonstrated that the sensitivities of present gravimeters can detect the change of the gravity field when a person gets under the unit when it is mounted upon a stand. That being the case, what if: 1: A rotating eccentric mass is placed near a stationary mass in such a way so that their mass centers periodically "center", thereby creating a greater common mass at that instant. 2: A mass supported as a pendulum that swings between two other masses so that when it is centered between the other two, a common greater mass center is formed. 3: Many other possible setups, with already existing oscillating or repetitive moving masses. Now if the gravimeters can detect and record the action of these masses when they become greater masses, then at what levels are these signals? If the gravimeters output can be shown to indicate the test pattern induced gravity change, then the gravimeters themselves are useable as the detectors, and their outputs can be amplified to any degree to recover the data "transmitted". These gravimeters are already in place around the world just waiting for these "signals". Their reception at these distant locations would "prove" the concept. This test pattern should be detectable at any distance, and be recognized as the induced source pattern. The signal levels may be way down in the "grass" of the noise but if they are there, they may be recoverable. I feel it is very important to use materials that show absolutely no electromagnetic, electrostatic, activity if thats possible, that might introduce error into the data, and to show that it is strictly gravity effects. The outputs may be electronically manipulated after reception to any degree. The implications of possibilities if successful, are staggering. My humble opinion, Bob.

Can anyone see the advantages of making use of the information contained in this patent. It seems industry has been old school thinking forever. In my research for this patent, I made use of steam tables that were generated in the early years of the last century. The same tables are being cited in todays textbooks and writings. The problems started when examining the information derived from the tables. Professors and others quoting them made assumptions that I believe were not correct, and then expounded on ways and methods, with elaborate diagrams and charts, to show how to interpret and correct the real world applications of this information. For instance, when there is a problem of air in a steam system using a heat exchanger as the example, the assumptions were that the partial pressures of the air would reduce the efficiency of the heat exchanger because it lowered the steam temperature. They claimed that a 10% air volume would leave a 90% steam volume and with 100 psi pressure that would be steam at 90 psi. Then they would cite from the steam tables, the saturated steam temperature for 90 psi steam as proof of the lower temperature, giving that as the reason for the lower temperature out of the exchanger. First Google the term "partial pressures of steam" and read what comes up. The first thing to come up for me is The Engineering toolbox with the "air and steam mixture" information. And they cite the Daltons Law of Partial Pressure which is; The total pressure exerted by a mixture of gases is the sum of the partial pressures of the individual gases! There are several things wrong with this reasoning. First, the idea of partial pressures is for calculation purposes only and not for real world, because all the gasses within the vessel will be at the same pressure. Then the partial or effective pressure of steam that they use is converted from percentage of volume into percentage of pressure. Here again the 90% steam by volume will not be at a different pressure within the vessel. Then when they go to the saturated steam tables, they cite the 90 psi steam pressure to get the lower steam temperature. Magic. Voodoo actually, because the steam isn't saturated, its only 90%. Therefore because of all of this misinformation, I decided to design a new approach to the concept of heat exchange. Hence the successful patent application and issue.