What is this "ironing" you speak of?
Wonder washing machine 'virtually waterless'
What is this "ironing" you speak of?
Here_to_learn
Illuminator
Ironing: Verb - to produce smooth irony.
Last edited:
CelticRose
Graduate Poster
What you have to do if your clothes dryer doesn't work right.
I don't iron either, except for a few pairs of dress slacks that have to drip-dried. Darn dress codes!
There's no reason for that to be the case. As long as the humidity is below 100%, clothes dry spontaneously: no free energy is required. While it does take energy to evaporate the water, this energy will come from the environment. If we needed to evaporate some water in a sealed system at 100% humidity then yes, we'd have a specific thermodynamic goal to accomplish, but that's not what a typical dryer is doing. What a vacuum or a heating dryer does is speed up the rate of evaporation.
Evaporation is basically proportional to the vapour pressure of water minus partial pressure of water vapour at the liquid surface. We can speed up drying by increasing the vapour pressure (heat), decreasing the partial pressure everywhere (vacuum), or decreasing the partial pressure near the surface (convection, i.e. blowing on it, or tumbling). A vacuum isn't even necessary: the only thing that matters is the partial pressure of water vapour: a dehumidifier will accomplish the same thing as a vacuum pump.
In regards to condensation dryers, they are essentially just closed loop dryers with a passively cooled dehumidifier. Instead of the process of
ambient air in -> air heated -> hot air dries clothes -> warm moist air vented
they go
internal air heated -> hot air passes over clothes -> warm moist air passes over condenser -> repeat
The advantage is that they don't need to vent moist air, not that they are more energy efficient. There's not much a lot of energy that could be saved by using a heat exchanger to heat the dry loop air with the moist loop air, because of the cooling effect of evaporation.
You can improve on this, though. A heat pump can use some of that energy. Instead of external air doing the cooling, it's the cold side of the heat pump, and instead of electric/gas adding heat to the hot air, it's the hot side of the heat pump. The condensing water actually helps to 'warm' the cold side of the heat pump, despite it being at a lower temperature. It's also not venting moist air, and a fair bit of energy can be saved.
I don't suggest you take my word - that's why I supplied links. Do your own research.
"As promised"?the June 2008 press release said:
You clearly have no knowledge of the process (and the challenges, pitfalls and delays) in bringing scientific innovations to the marketplace. I'd say this one has gone impressively quickly from the first press release to a working prototype and a major commercial partnership.
That's wrong in every possible way.
Professor Burkinshaw and his department spend their time teaching, researching, and publishing scientific papers. The funds for further development of the Xeros process (which are completely separate from other research and teaching funding) are not raised through 'publicity', but through establishing the science (in peer-reviewed publications) and the technological potential (by prototypes and demonstrations). Also, the basic claim is not in any way 'fantastical'.
Matty1973, you have to take press releases from any University about scientific research (and probably any other sort) with a pinch of salt. I have found the following rule of thumb useful over the years: unless a claim is in quotes, with a researcher's name attached to it, it doesn't come from the research team - it's an oversimplification, gross exaggeration or misunderstanding, by the press office. I wish this were not the case, but you get used to it in time - it's just like reading or watching adverts and extracting the nuggets of information from the dross.
I'm not suggesting the press release includes downright lies, but you can imagine the brief telephone interview with Prof Burkinshaw:
Reporter: So you're saying that your invention will lead to a new kind of washing machine that uses much less water?
Prof: Sort of - the way it works is {scientific explanation that doesn't make it into the press release}
Rep: Ah, a good angle. What would you say is the least amount of water it will need if everything works according to theory?
Prof: Well, theoretically the amount of water needed to wet the fabric wouldn't be much more than a cup or so. Of course, we couldn't get anywhere near that in practice, because {more scientific explanation that doesn't make it into the press release}
What somewhat got up my nose (and please excuse me for being a bit snippy in my previous post) was your assumption that you could meaningfully relate a prestigious University department, and a researcher with expertise, international academic recognition and many peer-reviewed publications, to the Steorn frauds.
I doubt it's Prof Burkinshaw's fault that his process is being promoted with sloppy journalism and a rather imaginative claim (though I'm not too keen on the Xeros website - it's a bit too slick, and lacking in detailed science, for my taste). In Steorn's case, though, the problem isn't with publicity, reporting or misrepresentation (by a third party), it's that the 'process' itself has no basis in fact.
(btw, I could find nothing in this latest round of media reports to suggest that anyone had bothered to contact either the University research team, Cambridge Consultants or GreenEarth for information, rather than simply cloning the press releases - that's 'science journalists' for you.)
Let's have a look at your supposedly similar cases:
Track record and expertise of 'inventor' in relevant scientific field | | Sean McCarthy, CEO Steorn: none | | Prof Burkinshaw, Head of Textile Chemistry: leading academic in the field, numerous relevant publications, previous commercialised innovations
Plausibility of 'invention' | | Proven to violate laws of physics | | Doesn't violate any scientific principles; related to existing consumer technology (e.g. colour-catchers)
Motive for pulling scam that's certain to be exposed within a year or two | | Short-term financial gain; publicity stunt to build up their business, perhaps as marketers of 'unusual' technology; (also possible they're all bonkers) | | Can't think of any
Reason for not pulling this scam | | Might not work | | Public disgrace for individuals and institutions, possible prosecutions and sackings
Progress of 'product' | | None - no successful demonstrations, no commercial interest from industry (all funding from individual backers of 'exotic' ventures)| | Backed by technology-transfer experts IP Group ; partnered with Cambridge Consultants to produce successful prototype; commercial partnership with dry-cleaning licensors GreenEarth
Now, don't you think your analogy was just a wee bit fanciful?
Several posters in this thread don't seem to understand what technological innovation is about. You take risks. You very often begin with an idea that seems 'fanciful', and it may turn out that it actually is fanciful - so you write off the loss and go onto the next idea.
Critical thinking isn't about being equally 'skeptical' of all unusual claims - that's just a mirror-image of the lack of judgement that causes 'woos' and cranks to embrace pseudoscientific nonsense. I think that anyone claiming the title 'skeptic' is taking on some responsibilities - including doing some research before rubbishing any novel technological claim that doesn't obviously violate any scientific principles.
What is an analogy?
"... an analogy is a comparison between two different things in order to highlight some point of similarity."
I am quite prepared to admit there are many ways in which the two cases are different, but the analogy was proposed to highlight a possible point of similarity as explained in post 39. Your comments and links do reassure me that this is unlikely to be the case but ultimately the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
In your chart you say that you "can't think of any" reason for researchers to be "scamming" their investors - yet this is the very point of the analogy (post 39). Even if it is not the case here it is still a valid possible reason. You say it would be "certain to be exposed with in a year or two" - not necessarily since you also say "It's far from impossible that some intractable problem will turn up that precludes the process from ever getting into your domestic washing machine (that's the way R&D goes)".
Your defense of the original claim is to be honest laughable. To say it is only the Universtity's Press Office so it is not reliable is quite incredible. The information has been in the public domain for over a year now - can you give an example where Professor Burkinshaw has publically distanced himself from the "Press Office's claims"?
You tell us to "Do your own research" - yet not to even trust the University Press Office (which you quoted yourself in your very first post). Are we all meant to go direct to Professor Burkinshaw? Remember you were the one that brought his good name into this discussion. My original skepticism was directed at the claims made in an article, not personal to him. Rather than go on the defensive on his behalf may be then you should have suggested the claims were not from him but instead from the Press Office. Waiting until after the claims prove false and then bringing it up makes it sound like an excuse.
"Critical thinking isn't about being equally 'skeptical' of all unusual claims" - I totally agree - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - that's why I was highly skeptical of the original claim and less so of the more recent less extraordinary claim. Will you acknowledge that rather than being 'overly skeptical' of the original claim I was in fact correct?
"... an analogy is a comparison between two different things in order to highlight some point of similarity."
I am quite prepared to admit there are many ways in which the two cases are different, but the analogy was proposed to highlight a possible point of similarity as explained in post 39. Your comments and links do reassure me that this is unlikely to be the case but ultimately the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
In your chart you say that you "can't think of any" reason for researchers to be "scamming" their investors - yet this is the very point of the analogy (post 39). Even if it is not the case here it is still a valid possible reason. You say it would be "certain to be exposed with in a year or two" - not necessarily since you also say "It's far from impossible that some intractable problem will turn up that precludes the process from ever getting into your domestic washing machine (that's the way R&D goes)".
Your defense of the original claim is to be honest laughable. To say it is only the Universtity's Press Office so it is not reliable is quite incredible. The information has been in the public domain for over a year now - can you give an example where Professor Burkinshaw has publically distanced himself from the "Press Office's claims"?
You tell us to "Do your own research" - yet not to even trust the University Press Office (which you quoted yourself in your very first post). Are we all meant to go direct to Professor Burkinshaw? Remember you were the one that brought his good name into this discussion. My original skepticism was directed at the claims made in an article, not personal to him. Rather than go on the defensive on his behalf may be then you should have suggested the claims were not from him but instead from the Press Office. Waiting until after the claims prove false and then bringing it up makes it sound like an excuse.
"Critical thinking isn't about being equally 'skeptical' of all unusual claims" - I totally agree - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - that's why I was highly skeptical of the original claim and less so of the more recent less extraordinary claim. Will you acknowledge that rather than being 'overly skeptical' of the original claim I was in fact correct?
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Just found this thread again. Looks like it does not use much detergent so no need to rinse. However one cup of water it uses is far less than 10% of the water used in a normal wash. So which is correct?
If the clothes are dirty there will be lots of dirt removed. Where does it go? I suggest that the beads will want washing to remove this dirt.
How do the beads fall though the mesh after the wash? Some would be caught in the clothes and need to be manually removed.
I suggest that there is a lot not said in the article.
If the clothes are dirty there will be lots of dirt removed. Where does it go? I suggest that the beads will want washing to remove this dirt.
How do the beads fall though the mesh after the wash? Some would be caught in the clothes and need to be manually removed.
I suggest that there is a lot not said in the article.