Official Luthiers Forum!

For all those using air tools have a look at this for a world first, so obvious it should have been standard fettle form the conception of the air tool.
Winner of the Australian TV show "The new Inventors" invention of the year 2006

Cheers all

Kim

Kim--Looks like it has some environmental features but I'm skeptical beyond that. Pressure in the return line will reduce the performance of the tool proportionately.
Could be wrong, I was once before.
Nelson

Nelson,

I just watched the TV show, apparently the input of the exhaust air back into the intake of the compressor actually decreases noise output by more than 50%. And a shop running around 10 air tools can expect a minimum power cost saving along the lines of between 28% and 35% p/a.

This is significant when you consider that nearly 10% of all power consumed in Australia, and I dare say the USA and other developed nations, is by air compressors of one kind or another.

I do acknowledge your thoughts regarding restriction to exhaust flow inhibiting the overall output performance of the tool, but it is my understanding that this is not a significant factor. Even if the tool was to loose say 10% output at a given PSI, the 28% drop in power consumption by the compressor would present an adequate buffer to allow a larger compressor to be employed to compensate and still save money.

My take is that the advantages this system delivers are, a HUGE noise reduction, the elimination of dangerous emissions directly into the work area of the end user, longer tool life afforded by the cooler drier air introduced back into the system which allows the tool to run much cooler, an increase in compressor efficiency firstly by the pre-compressed air being recycled back into the system, and secondly by deceasing the volume of air being pulled by the compressor through a filter/drier.

It should be considered that there was some stiff competition in this years contest, some really world class ideas. But IMHO, the EARS system deserved to win as it is simply brilliant.

EARS is already a commercial success being sold around the globe to auto assembly plants and the like. When copyright has run it's course, I would imagine you will see this system, (or a knockoff) as standard equipment on all new compressed air systems. In fact, in the not too distant future, I think it may even be against the law to run a compressor, at least in a commercial sense, without an EARS.

Cheers

Kim

Kim
Sounds like this may be the second time I'm wrong.
I can definitely see the environmental advantages.
It does look like the psi (or metric equiv) would have to be the same in the return line as the "pressure" line IF they are both the same inside diameter. This is assuming that all the CFM going into the tool is returned to the compressor and none discharged at the tool.
I'm obviously missing something here so maybe you can enlighten me.
It is a very interesting development.
Nelson

[QUOTE=npalen] Kim
Sounds like this may be the second time I'm wrong.

[/QUOTE]

No Nelson, it's just your first time, last time it was me who was wrong!

Now why didn't I think of that...

_________________
I'd like to be able to prove, just for once, that money wouldn't make me happy...

I was wrong once too, Nelson. But it was strange because I was actually right, only I thought I was wrong. so I was wrong about being wrong, but not ACTUALLY wrong. Hasn't happened since.

Nelson,

Attached is a link that will more throughly describe the EARS system, but they still play the cards fairly close to the chest. By the looks of things, the EARS system will soon be in a store near you, given that there is already an EARS North America distributorship.

Anyhow, have a look HERE hopefully this will fill in a few of the gaps for you and any others who may be interested.

It was interesting to read this quote:

"It's important when looking at noise level data to remember that decibel ratings are logarithmic," Kniesly says. "A 10-decibel decrease in noise level is 10 times quieter. A 20-decibel decrease in noise level is 100 times quieter."

At the bottom of that page is a link to the USA site so that may be worth a visit as well. One thing that would seem to be a benefit for woodworkers using airtools and this system is the removal of oil contamination of the work piece from the equation.

Have a read, I would be interested to know your thoughts, I was a bit sceptical at first myself but the guy who invented the system did receive the backing and assistance of the CSIRO and the dept of foreign trade here in AU. This support is unusual being that it came from a government who is notorious for failing to identify and support our home grown innovators. That fact alone indicates that it must have some solid merit.

HERE is a link to some demo video if you are interested, they could have had one with the compressor located outside so you could hear the before and after difference.

Cheers

Kimlarkim39052.1502430556

Kim--I think the reason for my difficulty in grasping the concept is that we're so used to compressed air being exhausted after it's done it's "work". I'm beginning to get my old brain wrapped around this concept--it's starting to make some sense to me. It's not that much different from a closed loop hydraulic system (hydrostat).
The environmental advantages alone would probably justify the concept.
Thanks for your patience, Kim.
Nelson