- #1
- 919
- 606
- TL;DR Summary
- How is this device better than a rotating screw when used for powders and granular stuff?
This device...
... is purportedly superior to the more traditional Archimedes lift where the screw is rotated and the tube is stationary.
The video itself does not explain the comparative physics very thoroughly. From the video itself and from the comments section, three broad types of views emerge :
[1] This device isn't fundamentally different from a traditional rotating screw type, but it's easier to support and drive an outer tube rather than an enclosed screw, and also to keep the material out of the bearings.
[2] Some viewers say there is a basic improvement in the way the input energy is used to drive the material up the tube, and that one can expect significant performance advantages based on the physics going on inside. (I.e., not merely to do with external engineering aspects).
[3] Another point made is that the advantage lies in not propelling air up the tube, and in not crushing the granules -- they seem to believe that this version can tolerate a bigger gap between the screw and the tube, compared with the rotating screw version.
I haven't been able to make up my mind, and haven't been able to fully understand some of the comments from viewers. Maybe someone on this forum can explain whether, and if so, how there is an internal performance improvement from driving the outer tube -- apart from practical engineering/implementation benefits.
... is purportedly superior to the more traditional Archimedes lift where the screw is rotated and the tube is stationary.
The video itself does not explain the comparative physics very thoroughly. From the video itself and from the comments section, three broad types of views emerge :
[1] This device isn't fundamentally different from a traditional rotating screw type, but it's easier to support and drive an outer tube rather than an enclosed screw, and also to keep the material out of the bearings.
[2] Some viewers say there is a basic improvement in the way the input energy is used to drive the material up the tube, and that one can expect significant performance advantages based on the physics going on inside. (I.e., not merely to do with external engineering aspects).
[3] Another point made is that the advantage lies in not propelling air up the tube, and in not crushing the granules -- they seem to believe that this version can tolerate a bigger gap between the screw and the tube, compared with the rotating screw version.
I haven't been able to make up my mind, and haven't been able to fully understand some of the comments from viewers. Maybe someone on this forum can explain whether, and if so, how there is an internal performance improvement from driving the outer tube -- apart from practical engineering/implementation benefits.
Last edited: