It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the world reccord of those that built the most powerful air compressor?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Nd if I took that same one and ran it inside that first's tank with a smaller tank and how many times over could that be done and what if I also established inside of it a pneumonic tool ? Would it be more powerful.?




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
hi op
in a nutshell
not a chance



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
please elaborate what in the hell are you talking about
i really dont understand or know what to look for to help you bro



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 


i think one inside of the other would not have a cumulative effect, it would not make it stronger or more powerful, it would simply make it like a ship with many hulls for safety.

with more and more tanks you just increase the possibility for failure. more welds, more cuts of metal or aluminum, more fixtures etcetera. more things that could go wrong.

i think the mightiest air compressor ever built would either be by NASA or Government for test purposes, or Industry, but i can't suggest (imagine) what type of industry would want such a powerful device.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 


the strongest air pressure i remember in life was in a machine shop. it supplied massive pressure to assist the hydraulics in a very old Kearney-Trecker CNC (computerized numerical control) turret style three axis machining center.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by LargeFries
 


Actually if the whole compressor is inside that other one's tank; you then have ease of compression for the compressor and resistance against the inside one's outer part of it's tank as long as they both or if repeated are ran simultaniously and the inside one will not effect the outside one in terms of force of explosion . I am pretty sure about that one and the more important of this thread is that of the environnment pressure constaint onto a electrical with any same torch but added ease of accumilation and providing an absolute pressure elevation towards adriven asembly and deffinatly is subject to rightly created where smallest area of air in area work is esential as to not be effected by counter decompression resistance as a compression after worked would be reestablished into that of the main area. Complicated for me it was and the best I had had come up with was two spindles pressed toggrther and pressure being introduced beyond dead center where a seperation would be an effect thus prying spindles to shift apart and spin . I don't expect anyone to understand everything that I write ; but try and accumilate the tools to eventually be able to.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 


your premise is absurd - to achieve 2 reductions - either the scale would be enormous or the air delivery miniscule

there is little use or need for enormous air pressurese anyway - most pnuematic systems rely on increasing the delivery rate [ m3 / min ] rather than the pressure

portable gas cylinders allmost all run at 232 or 300 bar

aircrafty tyres use nitorgen at upto IIRC 450psi

scuba and other diving uses 300bar max as do medical oxygen , BA sets , etc

most high pressure tesing is hydraulic , not pneumatic



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Im not sure why it would be practical but it should work. kind of like adding a pressure washer to a water hose.

You would have to rasie the pressure in the largest one first. The inside smaller tank should be open so the pressure evens out, than when the larger one is maxing out turn on the inside one. The pressure will be evened out in the inside and outside of the smaller compressor so it should allow it to compress the smaller tank more.
They will have to run at the same time. As the inside one fills it will lower the pressure of the larger compressor so you will have to have it running to maintain its pressure as air is put into the smaller tank. The pressure exuded on the inside tank wouldn't be experiencing anymore forces than it would if it were out of the tank.

Basically if you left the inside one open and closed it when the outside was pressurized the valve would show 0PSI on the small one. You were to take it out at that time of the larger one, the valve would still say 0PSI but would be full of Pressure. Its not the air density the pump has a problem getting into the tank, its the difference of pressure from inside the tank and the outside the tank. So if you had 100psi in the large tank, and the small tank was open and pressured out it should be able to also contain 100Psi inside it.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 
And hydrolic was the use that I pondered with but we were in a subject of air compressures and felt no need to confuse more.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 12345lonestar
 


It would be easyer to compress for the smaller one because of it's environment pressure thus accumilating as much as the force of the outer one in respect it's environment thus the inside one assuming that the seals could take it could experiment in my opinion double that of of the outer or relitively an outcome that may constitute any next one inside that inner one while speaking in hypertetical terms of mathematics. I think that you were imposing that the inner pump was to not accomplish it's task because of while pumping ; a flow possibility would exist but I don't think that it would have any relation between the two and an ussumtion would be to that of the both of them would have no effect to the other other than reducing the pressure of the outer one while on it's way to it's destined pressure .
edit on 25-8-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LargeFries
 


The max now is around 20000 psi and was why I had given it thought.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by LargeFries
 


hi - masive compressors are most common in mining an eareospace operations

size wise - the biggest i am aware of is the ragged chute system at cobalt ontario

it does not deliver a massive pressure - but due to its water power design it is physically huge - and is capable of a massive delivery rate

the airhouse at the now defunct NGTE site airhouse 01 , airhouse 02

is certainly the largest compressed air instailation in europe - its max pressure is quite low - but it can provide a MACH 2 airstream down 2m diameter pipes to test cells holding aircraft engines contunuiously for hours



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
In 1945-47 the Leuna Werke synthetic fuels plants of Nazi Germany were stripped of technology. One item that was brought to the US was a 3-stage hydrogen compressor that had the capability of producing 20,000 psi hydrogen. This was more difficult to engineer than an air compressor because of the properties of hydrogen and it was operational 70 years ago because there was a need for high pressure hydrogen.
I don't know of any need for 20,000 psi air but the technology exists should that become a requirement.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join