Comparison between reciprocator clearance adjustment and gas volume adjustment without inert gas
Thread Content
Is the actual exhaust volume of a reciprocating compressor equal to the compressor’s current volumetric flow rate? The power consumption of a compressor is proportional to its volumetric flow rate. Can it be understood that, for the same exhaust volume, the energy savings achieved through clearance adjustment are equal to those achieved through stepless flow rate adjustment?
The first thing for this issue is to respect the original design concept. The so-called clearance setting is determined by the expansion coefficients of the cylinder and the piston top (both ends) at rest and during normal operation. So the indicated air volume represents the actual amount of air inflated, and there is no need to consider any energy-saving measures in this regard. Until one fully understands the principles behind it, it is better to respect the original design and follow the parameters provided by it. Because this is a highly mature technology, it simply requires the operator to be well-versed in it.
First question: I think we need to consider pressure; in the extreme case, the pressure is constant, and it can be understood that way. In other words, flow rate refers to the amount of air pumped into your cylinder, but the pressure often differs by several orders of magnitude, so they are usually not the same. Second question: I believe it can be understood that, for the same engine displacement, the energy savings achieved through clearance adjustment are equivalent to those achieved through stepless air volume adjustment. However, the adjustment margin is limited, whereas stepless adjustment achieved through backflow via the air valve can provide more than 30% adjustment. Also, we need to understand the displacement based on the first question.
This needs to be determined based on the volume and pressure of air handled by the compressor, as well as its investment cost.