Talk:Vortex tube

message: SEVERE PLAIGERISM!
This entire article, even including formatting, was ripped from . 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)
thread_title: Plagiarism claim

message: 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)
thread_title: Link to Slashdot discussion?

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Real World Observations

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  These are incorrect statements in the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Generalized Application 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hello Sunilchhimpa95 , welcome to wikipedia, here is why I undid your additions