|
Posted by Zyp on March 2, 2008, 5:28 pm
amdx wrote:
>> Marc O'Brien wrote:
>>>> Marc O'Brien wrote:
>>>>>> If lower temperature [as in your case]
>>>>>> you could [for the cost of the copper tubing] route some of it
>>>>>> through the ice storage bin box.
>>>>
>>>>> That would be an idea if the ice was overly frozen by the machine.
>>>>> You could raise its temperature from say -6°C to -3°C without any
>>>>> melting. But in practice this would not work. The surfaces of the
>>>>> nearest ice masses would melt. So your suggestion would increase
>>>>> the rate of ice production by merely the same rate that it melts
>>>>> ice in the storage bin.
>>>>
>>>> The ice in the storage bin is keep cold by it's own presence [and
>>>> insulation.] There is considerable melting just to keep up with the
>>>> heat load of the surrounding bin and the aspiration of the ice. And
>>>> true, the introduction of the warmer water would increase melting.
>>>> But, by the same token, the inlet water temperature is now being
>>>> reduced which would increase the rate of harvest. [You could just
>>>> loop the copper once to minimize the exposure] I don't think it
>>>> would "cancel" out the increase in production. It would be
>>>> interesting to see though, the part of the whole process would be
>>>> influenced by the withdraw from the ice bin as the need arises
>>>> [more use.] In the beginning [with an empty bin] there would be no
>>>> increase, but as time passed it might.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the thought process the same as [sub-cooling the liquid line
>>>> using the suction gas]?
>>>
>>> I don't think so because a suction to liquid heat-ex firstly
>>> increases the likelihood of vapour free liquid entering the TEV.
>>> Vapour can be around 40 times as volumous as liquid and so only one
>>> eightieth of the liquid volume needs to flash to render the liquid
>>> line 50% vapour by volume. Then the heat-ex also reduces the
>>> chances of liquid droplets performing useful vapourisation down the
>>> suction line. A heat-ex also helps to reduce the suction to air TD
>>> which in turn reduces the suction dT along the way.
>>>
>>> I don't expect to see any equivalent benefit from running the
>>> incoming water through the ice bin. Only if run in contact with the
>>> ice bin drain water. Or if run through a bucket, in coil form,
>>> where left-over ice from drinks etc gets poured before glasses get
>>> cleaned.
>>
>> OK, sound good so far, so the OP could route the inlet water line
>> [3/8" copper] and encircle a copper drain line exiting from the bin.
>> [Say 1" copper] Insulation foam tape placed around the exit drain
>> would help retain any cooling effect. Otherwise the cool waste
>> water would just go down the drain. ?
>>> -- Zyp
>
> This is one of the first ideas I worked with. I get 4 to 5 lbs of
> waste water for every 4lbs of ice. That's one cycle of the ice
> machine. I like the idea, but because of placement of the machine and
> position of the drain, I would need to dig a hole in the ground and
> bury the holding container. It can be done, I was looking for a
> better solution.. If everything was perfect this solution would give me
> about 14% more
> ice. Everything is not perfect* so I might see 10% more ice.
> * (heat into the holding container and poor exchange between tubing
> and cooling water.)
> Mike
Mike;
You might also consider, that [I guessing you have a cuber] the waste water
is chock full of TDS [Total Dissolved Solids] which are washed off each
harvest. This means the water has a considerable amount of minerals and
can be a problem later. Minerals have a habit of sticking to warmer copper
tubing. [Like in an evaporative condenser.] Is that word, evaporative?
LOL
--
Zyp
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap