Talk:Vortex tube

Plagiarism claim

SEVERE PLAIGERISM!

This entire article, even including formatting, was ripped from [1]. I'm not sure exactly how to do this, but someone should at least cite it...

-Leif

Actually , it's the other way around :) Look at the small print at the bottom of the page you referenced. Duk 16:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questionable claim

I question this claim under the references:

Van Ness, H.C. Understanding Thermodynamics, New York: Dover, 1969, starting on page 53. A discussion of the vortex tube in terms of conventional thermodynamics, which is able to explain it completely.

For this to be true in 1969 is very unlikely as there are many papers in the 1990s that cannot even claim this. I haven't read the reference in question, however, so I cannot disbute it directly. X2-PB 10:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion was written by the author of the GAMBLE theory: 24.62.112.163 (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)John G. Gamble jggcmg @Comcast.net

"For this to be true in 1969 is very unlikely" Why? Josef Loschmidt first wrote about the gravito-thermal effect in the 19th century. The fact that gravity induces both density and temperature gradients in tropospheres of all planets, as well as in the vortex tube, was generally acknowledge in 1969 I understand. I quote from this closing comment here ..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/#comment-909809

"Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHG’s. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhD’s, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement." Douglas Cotton (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The physics is absolutely sound and will be proved by demonstration shortly. 24.62.112.163 (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)John G.Gamble

Discursive comment by 70.22.249.100 (talk)

After years of experimentation and analysis, I have discovered how a Vortex Tube, with no moving parts, transfers energy,! Around the late 1950's or so, in response to an article and urging by Red Stong, Editor of the Scientific American "Amateur Scientist" section, I made a single Vortex model with several hand carved iterations of the vortex "generator", which bettered the state of the art by 14%. My subsequent employment in Magnetics research thereafter prevented further immediate return to my quest for understanding of the unusual energy transfer associated with the Hilsch refrigeration device. "Maxwell's Demon" Years later,when I retired, I wanted to go back to explore further the theory which I had formed as to why my early effort was a success. I had no model shop, nor laboratory so I was obliged to appeal to those who were in the business of industrial cooling of one type or other. Several companies, over the years have made components of the Ranque Hilsch Vortex tube for my experimentation, with the probable hope that the "Gamble theory of energy transfer" was indeed reality and they could then have the benefit of being "in on the ground floor." Some components failed, as happens in research projects of such a dubious nature of long standing. Many academic Masters and Doctorates have invested serious time and effort to understand Maxwell's wily "Demon" but to date have had no tangible success. Happily, several documented experiments, informed by "The Gamble Theory," have provided confirming instances to assure me, absolutely, that I understand the underlying mechanism of a system (only apparently defying the second law of Thermodynamics.) Compressed air provides the energy to polarize the Vortex ( The Ranque Nappe ). This vortex progresses down the working Hot Tube, through the so called "brake" component, to exhaust a portion of the total flow through the Hot Valve. Diffusion provides a reversing Retroflow with accompanying pressure drop recovery. Thus the Brake has several useful functions. It lifts the Retroflow centrally so as to cause higher angled impacts with the Nappe, thereby effectively scattering the returning swirl of molecules for maximum energy transfer in directed-impact-conduction. It also assures a minimum pressure to push the mass of cooling air out the cold orifice to comprise the Cold fraction. It can now be appreciated that the Hilsch tube is a fortuitous functional form which provides an internal flow configuration to generate an high velocity vortex, with a control valve to proportion the relative flows to achieve either maximum temperature drop ( an hundred degree F. or so drop from ambient ) or the Tube's maximum efficiency. Were it not for the "brake", there would be but marginal performance, in that the brake's discharge must radially, and inwardly be elevated to offer a preferred angle of attack for the inflowing swirl upon the outflowing Nappe. Without the brake there would be little, if any, transfer of energy. Yet, in one experiment, I substituted a "snail comb" for the standard brake. That component, functionally, completely replaced the brake, even when the inserts length was cut in half ! And at low cold fractions, it was more efficient than the brake it replaced. For a more efficient design, make the "Snail comb" run full length of the Hot Tube and reemploy the brake~~ and the efficiency will markedly rise. This experiment alone disconfirms the generally accepted theory of "conservation of angular momentum," and it's model ~~the whirling skater with outflung arms. Molecules that are directed at the polarized air sheet of the Nappe Vortex, at a sufficient angle will, by impact-conduction transfer energy to the surface molecules in the Nappe. The process continues linear momentum transfer by impact-conduction throughout the Nappe. The energy moves though the Vortex, and because of the appropriate impact angles, the striking molecules rebound at a lower linear velocity to comprise an element of the cooling Retroflow. It is within the working Hot Tube that there are enormous losses as the Cold Fraction is increased. The problem is that component parts, which are referred to as "brakes", are absolutely not brakes, but diffusers and scatterers of high energy molecules, but this desirable behavior is, at best, effectively local. As the Hot Valve is adjusted to increase the Cold Fraction, the angle of egress taken by the predominant returning airflow, fans out axially until impacts transfer high energy directly into the exiting cold fraction to progressively dilute the temperature drop which then mitigates the cooling capacity. The Hilsch tube is not dealing with an "angular momentum exchange." Internal temperatures would preclude that, and assure that the air is in a gaseous state. Consequently there can be no angular momentum exchange ~ only linear velocity per Sir Isaac Newton. No skater model!! According to the Gamble theory of energy transfer in a Ranque-Hilsch Vortex Tube, the transfer of energy is by "Directed Impact-Conduction" and is collision angle sensitive in the conservation of linear momentum. The miracle of the vortex tube lies not with the fact that a hot molecule can transfer its energy to a hot or cold molecule, but that a cold one can. I have invited manufacturers to pass this material on to their various experts, consultants and Doctorates and challenge a refutation. I invite your people to review and challenge as well. Dr. M. Kurosaka produced an article in a scientific journal entitled "Acoustic streaming in swirling flow and the Ranque-Hilsch (Vortex tube ) effect." This experiment, as you no doubt are aware, used sound of a given frequency, from an organ pipe, to successfully suppress the cold output of the Hilsch tube. This outcome is fascinating, but to me, not all that surprising, in that it is consistent with the teachings of The Gamble theory. The sound from the organ pipe directly opposes the impacts of directed molecules striking the Ranque-Nappe at an high angle~ radially outward, head-on negating. #3. Free for anyone to copy and learn.70.22.249.100 (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to remove the text, at least on the simple grounds that it does not substantially aid the reader in understanding the topic. -- Taral 19:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please give some references that claim it is not understood. The point is that it does not contradict the laws of thermodynamics. GangofOne 00:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It is true that it doesn't contradict the laws of thermodynamics, but those laws do not explain the mechanism behind the temperature separation within the tube. This is the point I was making. The latest authors atribute the effect to a number of different causes and it is likely that it is the result of a summation of different mechanisms all occuring at once. X2-PB 12:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

---

"those laws do not explain the mechanism behind the temperature separation within the tube"

Yes they do actually. I came to this conclusion without knowing of the 1969 paper, and I still don't know what it says, but I'm guessing the author followed the same logic as I did. Very briefly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says the state of maximum entropy will evolve. That state thus is isentropic. Hence (PE+KE) is homogeneous, and so there is a temperature gradient.

101.174.128.251 (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

High pressure does not cause high temperature:

The paragraph in the article which wrongly claims high pressure causes high temperature should be removed.

It is the gravitational (centrifugal) force which acts on molecules that causes a density and temperature gradient. There is no direct action by gravity on pressure. Gravity (and centrifugal force) act on matter. Gravity sets up a state of hydrostatic equilibrium by acting on molecules and physically redistributing those molecules so as to form a density gradient with maximum entropy. That state (hydrostatic equilibrium) is also thermodynamic equilibrium because each is the (only possible) state with maximum entropy. So gravity forms both a density and temperature gradient. Then pressure is the result (not the cause) being proportional to the product of density and temperature.

Once you understand this, then it is easy to understand why the temperature gradient between the inner and outer regions is expected to be the (badly named) dry adiabatic lapse rate. Despite the name, it is just a thermal gradient of, in this case, about 20 to 50 million degrees per kilometer, which matches the observed values of around 100 to 250 degrees in about 5mm. There is nothing unexpected in this. If you had given me the data regarding revs/second and diameter of the tube, the temperature difference could have been calculated using the quotient of the acceleration due to the gravitational (centrifugal) force and the mean specific heat, which is about 1.0 for air. You should expect slightly different results with other gases having different specific heat.

So, all this is unsupported guesswork and should be deleted: From "One simple explanation is that the outer air is under higher pressure .... Peltier effect device, which uses electrical pressure (voltage) to move heat to one side of a dissimilar metal junction, causing the other side to grow cold."

Douglas Cotton (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I question the statement "The adiabatic expansion of the incoming gas, which cools the gas ..." because, if, for example you compress gas in a cylinder by moving a piston slowly half way down the cylinder you double the density but you don't make the individual modules move significantly faster since the slow movement of the piston is at a much slower speed than that of air molecules at sea level, namely about 1,700Km/hr. Even when you fly in plane at a significant fraction of that molecule speed the extra kinetic energy your whole body has does not make you hotter and nor does it make your warm coffee boil. When you let go of the piston the air expands but does not cool significantly. After all, why would your just allowing the molecules to have more space to move in slow down their velocity? I agree that there may be some increase in the molecular kinetic energy when such fast speeds are involved as in the vortex tube, but I can't say I know that for certain. Does it make the increase in temperature for the hot air to be greater in magnitude than the decrease in temperature for the cool air?

However, the overriding process in this force field is the same process that occurs when gravity forms the tropospheric temperature gradient in planets everywhere. It does so at the molecular level because that gradient is the state of maximum entropy (ie thermodynamic equilibrium) and the reason I say that is that in any natural thermodynamic process when entropy has to be increasing in that process (or in a combination of interacting thermodynamic systems) there is a corresponding reduction in unbalanced energy potentials. Such energy includes all forms of internal energy including potential energy due to the force field. At equilibrium, if no other internal energy changes like phase change are taking place then the sum of mean molecular PE and mean molecular KE will be constant at different altitudes or at different distances from the center of the vortex tube. So we can equate PE gain with KE loss getting M.g.dh = -M.Cp.dt so that the temperature gradient dt/dh = -g/Cp and this works also for the vortex tube when we replace g with the centrifugal force, as I explained here in 2014. Douglas Cotton 2001:8003:26E2:3300:A467:35BF:FBC2:F9E6 (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Link to Slashdot discussion?

Is the link to a Slashdot discussion really relevant? I don't think it's "encyclopedical"... or else we would go around adding Slashdot links to Wikipedia articles in whatever subject they discuss there. I suggest removing it. -- LodeRunner 22:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Let's archive the link to the Slashdot discussion here. After all, it's just another discussion  Quicksilver 05:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

References

The Scientific American article reference is apparently from the 1960 book by that title (out of print since 1972), compiled by C.L. Stong and published by Simon and Schuster. Stong served as editor of the Amateur Scientist column from 1954 until his death in 1977. If anyone has access to a copy of the book, a complete, correct citation for the article would be appreciated. A new anthology of Amateur Scientist articles from the 1920's to 1999 is now available on CD ROM, published by Tinkers Guild (2002) ISBN: 0970347626. Available from Amazon.com  Quicksilver 05:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. No one should be without a copy of this excellent book. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a date discrepancy between the article and the Reference about Rudolf Hilsch's article. The article states 1945, the Reference 1947. Which is correct?  Quicksilver 05:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The referenced article is a translation of the original. The translation was indeed published in 1947, but I don't know about the original. Itsallgroovy 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

how it works

So, how does it work? --DavidCary 07:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

the outer vortex spins toward the "hot" end of the tube, picking up energy from the inner vortex which is returning from the hot end and going toward the cold end, there are plenty of theories why the inner vortex loses energy while the outer vortex gains it when the law of conservation of angular momentum means the inner one should gain energy, the easiest to understand is an ultrasonic "hum" forms from the vortices moving at arguably a million RPM, and it is this "hum" that shuffles higher energy molecules out to the outer vortex and lower energy molecules to the inner vortex due to the difference in sound moving through warmer and/or colder materials. But like I said, Theory, in reality.... no one REALLY knows how these damned things work, lot of good ideas, but in the end it's a mystery, especially since the phenomenon doesn't occur with water, although that might be more of an issue with thermodynamics, or viscosity, or a thousand other laws of reality. --Munky--68.124.106.93 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it does work with water, or atleast there is evidence that it does, but because of the higher viscosity of water it means that a water vortex tube has to be pretty huge.WolfKeeper 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It works with water to a very small extent. I believe the maximum temperature seperation is only a few degrees whereas, with air, a variation of over 60 degrees can be achieved. It is thought that the heating effect reported with water is actually due to a different mechanism altogether. The main reason that the mechanism (for air) is not known for certain is that is is the result of a combination of a number of different mechanisms, some of these are laminar, some are turblent. It is possible, however, to accurately model the effect using CFD codes and so, with enough research, it may be possible to exactly discover the presice mechanism(s) causing the effect. X2-PB 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see specs on performance (if they exist). What diameter & length would be required to get the 45°C Δ_t quoted? Trekphiler 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Do you have any citation regarding your "theory" here? It would be better to say there are a number of "hypotheses" but none that you know of can be explained with the laws of physics - or words to that effect, wouldn't you agree. It takes a long time and much evidence before a hypothesis becomes accepted as a theory. Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" on SSRN, Researchgate and LinkedIn, read by many thousands and linked at http://climate-change-theory.com and never proven wrong by anyone anywhere. 2001:8003:26E2:3300:D03E:7328:1E91:F014 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It works because of the gravito-thermal effect  Douglas Cotton (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I will add to my comment of 2 April 2014 because there is a serious error in the "explanation" in the article where it reads "The adiabatic expansion of the incoming gas, which cools the gas and turns its heat content into the kinetic energy of rotation." I say this because it is a common misconception (which cannot be supported by the Kinetic Theory of Gases) that expansion of a gas cools it. The explanation in the article is wrong on several counts. You have to consider what happens along a radius due to centrifugal force. This experiment* is relevant because they used centrifugal force to produce temperatures as low as 1K. I quote "They let the molecules of various substances, such as fluoromethane, run up against the centrifugal force on a rotating disk, while being guided by electrodes. The speed of the decelerated molecules corresponds to a temperature of minus 272 degrees." This is the key point: the molecules do indeed lose kinetic energy (because they cool) but the energy loss goes into potential energy due to the centrifugal force field. The same thing happens when you compress air in a cylinder by slowly moving a piston half way down. If you let it go the piston would return to its original position. The air would not have been significantly hotter when compressed if the piston moved much slower than the speed of the molecules, that being about 1,700 Km/hr. The energy you imparted went almost entirely into potential energy associated with the doubling of the density and pressure. This is just like what also happens in the troposphere as any small parcel of air moves upwards the molecules are slowed because they are rising in the gravitational field (with some molecular kinetic energy converted to molecular gravitational potential energy) not because the parcel may be expanding. The hot air in the warmer (and warming) outer region of the vortex tube has acquired kinetic (thermal) energy from the colder (and cooling) inner air. The article is wrong in saying that this outer gas has warmed because of its fast motion. (You don't get warmed in an airplane even though the plane is moving perhaps half the speed of air molecules at the surface below.) In summary, my original explanation is correct and you may read more about this non-radiative heat transfer from cold to hot that also happens in the troposphere (enabled by gravity) as this is important to our understanding of atmospheric physics also.** That's why it's so important to explain what happens in a Vortex tube correctly in this article.

• https://scitechdaily.com/new-method-uses-centrifugal-force-decelerate-particles-creates-new-research-opportunities/
  • http://climate-change-theory.com

2001:8003:26E2:3300:1F0:CBE6:688B:CEDC (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains how a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves and has maximum entropy within the constraints of an isolated system. In a gravitational field (such as in Earth's troposphere) thermodynamic equilibrium is also hydrostatic equilibrium because of the fact that each is the state of maximum entropy. When molecules are in free path motion between collisions, kinetic energy (KE) is interchanged with gravitational potential energy (PE). Temperature is based on the mean KE per molecule, as explained in Kinetic Theory. This means that gravity sets up both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. (The pressure is then a corollary, being proportional to the product of density and temperature, and it also has a Pressure-gradient force at hydrostatic equilibrium which is the same state of maximum entropy that is thus also thermodynamic equilibrium.)

Now, by equating KE gain with PE loss, we deduce that the thermal gradient is the quotient of the acceleration due to the gravitational force and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases, as derived under lapse rate. For the vortex tube, the effective gravitational force is between about 10^6 and 10^7g, so let's say 5 * 10^6. The approximate distance (internal radius) is about 5mm. The above quotient gives 9.8 * 5 * 10^6 degrees per kilometer, and that reduces to about 250 degrees in 5mm, as is observed according to the article. If a particular tube only generates 10^6g we would expect 50 degree temperature difference. So the hypothesis appears to be well supported by the data in this article. Douglas Cotton (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional links added above Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation: Wikipedia - standard physics as linked, and this Vortex tube article for data relating the 250 degrees temperature difference. Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Vortex tube demonstrates heat from cold to hot

If you consider each radius as the air speed is accelerating and the temperature gap widening, there is actually heat from the colder central region to the outer hotter region near the circumference of the tube. This happens because entropy is increasing in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as can easily be seen when you consider the effect upon entropy due to changes in both kinetic energy and potential energy in that force field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.82.244 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Heat Pump

The definition of a heat pump is a device which uses work to move heat from one resevoir to another. The vortex tube, however, uses neither work nor heat transfer in its system. Given this, and the recent modifications to this article, I question whether or not the vortex tube is a heat pump.

In order for it to run, it needs a compressor to blow the air into it. That takes work. If you run a tube from the cold pipe leading from the vortex tube, then you can use that tube to cool things. Meanwhile the hot pipe can be used to heat things. Hence it is a heat pump.WolfKeeper 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it, Wolfkeeper. I was about to say the same thing. I'll just add that without a pump to compress the input gas, a vortex tube is just a pipe with a hole in the side. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

These arguments show two glaring misconceptions about thermodynamics. One, you claim that the compressed air requires work. This is true, it does require work to compress air. This means that there is a compressor linked up to this tube compressing air, and that the compressor is doing work on the air before it enters the vortex tube. The tube itself exerts no work on the air.

Really? So you are seriously claiming that energy due to the pressure of the hot and cold sides of the vortex tube is exactly equal to the energy of the supply? I find that difficult to believe. I think that the hot side of the vortex tube is hotter than the cold side is cold. That's because of waste heat generated due to viscosity in the tube. So work has been done there at the very least. And from the reversibility of the Carnot cycle we know that it cannot exceed the efficiency of the Carnot cycle (otherwise you could build a perpetual motion machine). In practice, the vortex tube is *very* inefficient, so it doesn't get anywhere near that point.WolfKeeper 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Two, you claim that because "the hot pipe can be used to heat things" and the cold pipe can be used to cool things, there is heat transfer. This is not heat transfer into or out of the system. You seem to be mistaking heat with temperature. Yes the temperature at the inlet and the two outlets is different, but the overall heat of all the air in the control volume of the vortex tube remains constant. This is the thermodynamic definition of heat transfer.

Also, if the hot air were to heat another system, that would be after it was out of the system of the vortex tube. You can't consider effects of what the mass does once its out of the system (or before it's in the system, from your compressor argument) to be heat transfer or work done while in the system.

But we don't have to let the air exhaust to atmosphere and thus leave the system. We just have to pipe it from the ends of the vortex tube (after it's heated/cooled the external reservoirs via conduction through the walls of the vortex tube) and feed it back into the pump inlet. That makes the system much easier to analyse and removes your objection about mass leaving the system. Now only heat and work can enter and leave the system: the former entering/leaving via the cold/hot end walls of the vortex tube; the latter via the pump. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

69.174.226.202 if you want to be really anal about it, the vortex tube isn't in itself, on its own, a heat pump, but you can add the cold sink heat exchanger, the hot source heat exchanger and plumbing to mix the hot and cold airstreams back together again before going through the air pump and the vortex tube, and then it is. But everybody knows all that, "so quit buggin' me man".WolfKeeper 05:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've revised the into to remove pro/anti heat pump claims. Let's find good references and cite them properly before re-adding (I don't have access the current references or I would look myself). --Duk 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Heat transfer issue: Of course there is a transfer of kinetic (thermal) energy across the internal (imaginary) boundary between the inner and outer regions. This is in accord with what the second law of thermodynamics says will happen as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy is approached. This is basic thermodynamics, but not well understood here it seems. The transfer stops only when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained, this being the same as hydrostatic equilibrium in this example. Douglas Cotton (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Real World Observations

Understanding the operation of this device has been an interest to me for quite a while. It is the core device in solving both the energy needs and global warming problems we face. The fluid dynamics of it are quite awesome and deserve much more attention. Some of the observations I have discovered is that the temperatures reached on the high side is in relation to the friction generated against the inner walls of the tube. This was verified by using a floating inner wall. The inner wall was supported by magnets such that it spun with the vortex. The high side outlet temperature tracked the inlet temperature. One other feature is that if the low side is used to pre-cool the inlet gas, along with the magnetic floating inner wall, that the temperature of the cold side drops even more radically. If the inlet temperature id 70F then the outlet tends to be below the condensation point of CO2 and you produce nice chunks of CO2 ice. I am not going to get into my best application for this device, but one that I will throw out there, is that buy using the vortex tube as a second stage device on existing HVAC applications, that you can double the cooling capacity of standard HVAC equipment. This is because HVAC equipment takes a liquid to a gas. As the gas exits from the primary cooling coil on return to the compressor, you pass it through a vortex tube stage. This stage is placed in front of the primary cooling coil much like an econimizer on boilers. ( Thank You USS Constellation for my education on 1200PSI Steam ) There is a balance of the high side and low side that must be set via valves. The high side is run through a secondary cooling coil, and the low side on my next experiment is still cold enough to cool the high side outlet of the compressor. But this may be abandoned if I get trenching done to my AG well to use it as an energy well to draw off the unwanted heat. The end result is 10 tons of cooling on a 5 ton compressor, and the compressor runs at a cooler temp and lower load even on hot days. [ Vance L. Turner - San Andreas, CA ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.187.128.41 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actual applications

Units - is BTU being used here to talk about power (BTU/h but with /h left off to keep things short?) if so then this needs to be converted to kW rather than kJ. I don't want to make the change my self as I'm british, and we havn't used BTU's for 30+ years and so i'm out of my depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.111.84 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a section on Proposed applications, but I don't see any mention of its actual use in the Helikon vortex separation process despite the fact that this article links to that page in the See also section.

And hasn't South Africa also used this technology to provide relatively cool air for workers in deep mines to breathe? I was led to believe that this was where they got the idea for the enrichment plant. Andrewa (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See also Valindaba and South African Nuclear Energy Corporation. Andrewa (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed '...a temperature drop of about 26.6 °C (80 °F).' to '...a temperature drop of about 26.6 °C' (48 °F)'. 26.6 °C = 80 °F on a thermometer but in absolute terms 1°C = 1.8°F. Pawprintoz (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Unless of course the 80 °F is correct and the 26.6 °C was wrong. This may be true in light of the lengthy quote in italics under 'Questionable claim' above. Please correct it if I'm wrong. Pawprintoz (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

These are incorrect statements in the article

NOR

(a) It is also usually agreed upon that there is a slight effect of hot air tending to "rise" toward the center, but this effect is negligible — especially if turbulence is kept to a minimum. (b) One simple explanation is that the outer air is under higher pressure than the inner air (because of centrifugal force). Therefore the temperature of the outer air is higher than that of the inner air. Reasons: (a) Whilst in the Earth's troposphere convection appears slow, the rate at which thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy is approached in this vortex tube is almost instantaneous because we have a radial gravitational force field (created by centrifugal force) which is several orders of magnitude greater than Earth's gravitational force. Molecules that happen to move towards the outside gain very significant kinetic energy, whilst those that move towards the center lose much of their kinetic energy as they gain equivalent (and huge) gravitational potential energy. So, rather than being "insignificant" this does in fact explain the whole observed temperature difference, and no other valid physics can. (b) High pressure is not what causes or maintains high temperatures, because this is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the ideal gas law or any other physics. The onus is upon the author of this statement to establish this claim, which is impossible to do using valid physics. Recommendation: In that there probably is not as yet any suitably reviewed and published explanation, I suggest this article should either .. (a) just state the observations of different temperatures and explain the mechanism, or (b) do as in (a) and then discuss what are clearly called "hypotheses" that the editor(s) can also explain using valid physics, not "guesses" as in these two paragraphs. Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC) For (a), I agree that this seems dubious. It is also unsourced in the article. I went ahead and removed the sentence. Adiabatic processes do indeed change the temperature of a gas, but the sentence is unreferenced and at a minimum seems an oversimplification. Note that the onus is not on the author to "establish" this claim; we need sources, not logic or original synthesis. I tagged it as needing sources, which of course the entire section on the tube's operation needs. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Just a comment: Basically I agree, but as I said there will be no "sources" until the world of science comes to grips with the reality of the gravito-thermal gradient (which the vortex tube demonstrates so well with observations matching the expected "dry adiabatic lapse rate" of -g/Cp) and the consensus accepts that Josef Loschmidt was right after all. I'll be spending the rest of my life submitting papers on this until some editor recognizes the validity of the physics, which of course rebuts the greenhouse conjecture that is based on isothermal assumptions with unbalanced energy potentials, contrary to what the Second Law says would be the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Yes, 99.9% don't understand thermodynamics: I happen to be in the 0.1% who do. Douglas Cotton (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC) In the mean time, please follow the relevant policies and consider me for mention in your Nobel Prize acceptance speech. VQuakr (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC) You are very mistaken if you think this to be my original concept. The brilliant physicist, who was the first to estimate the size of molecules, also thought about how those molecules responded to gravity, and he did so in the 19th century. Loschmidt's hypothesis was accepted in the early 20th century I gather, but had to be "forgotten" or quashed when the greenhouse guesswork took over. Every attempt to debunk Loschmidt (including Verkley et al) is easily refuted, as I have done elsewhere. 101.174.128.251 (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

picture

the inner spiral is screwed up. If you look at it from the leftmost part it looks like it spins in the same direction as the outer spiral, otherwise it looks to spin in the opposite direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.196 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Generalized Application

The vortex cooling tube provides empirical evidence that a force field acting on molecules in flight between collisions causes an interchange of molecular potential energy (relative to that force field) and kinetic energy. This creates a temperature gradient in the plane of the force field because only the kinetic energy component affects temperature. That temperature gradient in a steady force field represents the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will tend to evolve autonomously. We note that specific heat (Cp) appears in the denominator of the temperature gradient, just as it does in expressions for the temperature gradient caused by the force of gravity in all planetary tropospheres. Such temperature gradients continue in sub-surface regions of Earth even down to the core. Because the gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, any additional thermal energy supplied at the ccoler (outer) end will disturb that state. The Second Law tells us a new state will evolve and this obviously entails some thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection towards the warmer regions as explained in our group's website http://climate-change-theory.com and therein lies the explanation as to how thermal energy from the Sun makes its way to the core of any planet or satellite moon, including our own Moon where core temperatures are over 1300°C. Chairman Planetary Physics (group of persons qualified in physics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.226.179 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be much, much better to see a scholarly treatment of the energy theory of the vortex tube, published in a scientific journal. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What we have stated follows directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because when the sum of that potential energy and kinetic energy is homogeneous then, and only then are there no unbalanced energy potentials and thus entropy will not increase further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.226.179 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sunilchhimpa95 , welcome to wikipedia, here is why I undid your additions

You seem to be new here, thanks for your contributions, but I had to revert them since they seem to be copied verbatim from some other work. This is not allowed on wikipedia. If you want to rewrite some of that information that would be great. I left your references in, after some reformating, because they are relevant. Cheers. GangofOne (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

the efficiency section is so vague it's almost pointless having it.

also the "substantianted" claim that vortex tubes are _less_ efficient than air conditioners is wrong if the cited soure is used. the cited paper claims COP values from 2.5 -> 20, where as air conditioner units have a COP of around 2.5 - 3.5 (source wiki), whilst the world's best is around 10 or 12 (source 2 min google search) 151.230.210.63 (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)