Experts,
For 1000 m3/hr non condensable load out of it 10% is only condensable load at 470 torr, can I use water jet ejector. I got some inputs , for such huge non condensable load, water jet ejector should not be used.
Your view please
|
Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:11 PM
Experts,
For 1000 m3/hr non condensable load out of it 10% is only condensable load at 470 torr, can I use water jet ejector. I got some inputs , for such huge non condensable load, water jet ejector should not be used.
Your view please
Posted 23 January 2014 - 04:57 AM
Consider a water ring pump.
Or otherwise a compressor.
Posted 23 January 2014 - 05:28 AM
hemant,
Where did you get the information that liquid jet ejectors cannot handle large non-condensable loads? I have used liquid jet ejectors for evacuating process reactors containing large amount of non-condensables and they work fine. Korting is one of the leading manufacturers of ejectors (liquid / steam) and their brochure clearly mentions that liquid ejectors can be used for evacuating a process system containing process vapors (condensables) + air (non-condensables). Refer the links below:
http://www.koerting....-vacuum-ejector
https://www.koerting...s.pdf?sfvrsn=14
Since ejector design is still proprietary in nature and based on a lot of actual testing, manufacturers specializing in this field can provide you a tailor-made design which can suit your application.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ankur.
Posted 23 January 2014 - 06:29 AM
Choice between ejector and water ring pump is purely economical.
If it is only used to evacuate equipment at unit start-up then an ejector is fine.
For continuous operation with large quantity of noncondensables it becomes a more difficult choice.
Edited by PingPong, 23 January 2014 - 06:34 AM.
Posted 23 January 2014 - 07:35 AM
It is all a balance between purchase cost and running cost. An ejector is cheap to buy, but expensive to run. Relative to this, a liquid ring pump is more expensive to buy, but cheaper to run. An ejector requires very little technical expertise to run it, but a liquid ring pump requires skilled maintenance staff. You have to evaluate each case on its merits.
Posted 24 January 2014 - 10:37 AM
Dear PingPong and Katmar,
maybe I'm wrong but liquid ejectors are very different from liquid ring vacuum pumps...
Kind regards
Posted 24 January 2014 - 11:20 AM
Yes, we know.
To produce and maintain a vacuum one can use a liquid ejector, or a steam ejector, or a liquid ring pump, or a more conventional compressor.
Each has its advantages and disadvantages with respect to investment cost, operating costs, maintenance, .......
Posted 24 January 2014 - 10:39 PM
Consider this literature to support .
Breizh
![]() Steam Sparger In Atmospheric Water TankStarted by Guest_owe_* , 16 May 2025 |
|
![]() |
||
Water Hammer Study: Hysys Dynamics Vs PipenetStarted by Guest_powerox29_* , 07 Apr 2025 |
|
![]() |
||
![]() Steam Carrying Liquid From The Sour Water Stripping TowerStarted by Guest_kaidlut_* , 12 Sep 2024 |
|
![]() |
||
Water TreatmentStarted by Guest_not_mikhail_* , 01 Apr 2025 |
|
![]() |
||
![]() Transfer Water By Gravity - Maximum Velocity CriteriaStarted by Guest_56200358_* , 05 Mar 2025 |
|
![]() |