Discuss:Technology, Humanity, Industry:The water heater and the survival of legacy technology
From da Vinci Concept
Contents |
The water heater and the survival of legacy technology
sunny - Wed Jan 21 21:22:52 2004
I find the water heater devices technologically insulting. Every time that I think that I have enough hot water I run out. Whenever I travel I am confronted by the constant fear that while showering the water will suddenly become unbearably cold. They consume electricity at a more or less constant rate regardless of whether or not you are using them. They are innefficient and costly. They ruin the taste and potability of water that would otherwise be perfect for cooking or tea. They increase solute concentration and further burden household plumbing with an increase in hard water problems. They require the installation of two sets of water lines (cold and hot) and require extensive insulation to maintain their poor thermal efficiency.
There are other issues that I might also rant on but would like to concentrate on the primary cause of my distress: temperature. There is no assurance of constant or consistent temperature output at a fixture and desired output temperature must be experimentally tested on a case-by-case basis. This is ridiculous. I should know what output temperature the water from my tap is going to be before I stick my hand into it. When I turn it on it should retain the same temperature, or at least output setting, as the last use. It is like having a stove that you have to guage by trial and error. The dumb sensors used in stovetops is another possible rant and failing of technology to follow through to logical and necessary conclusion.
It seems to me that there should already be implemented solutions to the caveats of the water heater. There are many existing technologies that could take the place of this long standing technology. Why are there no radical business competitors with technologically superior products? The technology for in-situ, high-flow water heating has existed for several decades, and a quick scan of several distribution catalogs shows high cost but several readily available industrial products. The technology for temperature controlled thermostats for other household appliances (like stovetops) is also commonplace, but only very recently being implemented, and only in the most expensive equipment.
There may be several reasons for this; current consumer or industry market reluctance; existing industry milking the consumer and sitting on the patents; high research, development, and prototype costs; unavailable distribution channels; unavailable technology components; likely other possibilities.
Any of these reasons could be combated by a willing and able market competitor. The public does not need to be milked. Research and development is only interesting when it leaps forward. By feeding the consumer an incremental stream of flawed technologies the market is creating a market expectation for flawed technology. We are not only dissatisfied with our technologies, but we don't expect much better. This is a growing problem within technology markets that is commonly blamed on products coming to quickly to market. I would like to determine why the proponents of the technology industry fail to drive forward in these and similar instances and why we as consumers seem to accept it.
References:
Bionomic Analysis Of Predatory Exclusion Of Technologies,
Howard L. Thomas (Auburn Univeristy), Alexei Sharov (Virginia Tech), Henry Thompson (Auburn University), Neil Cahill (ITT), Salim Adanur (Auburn University),
National Textile Center Annual Report © November 2001
The uncertain quest: science, technology, and development, Francisco R. Sagasti, and CÈline Sachs-Jeantet, United Nations University Press ©1994
[Particularly the section titled: 13 New technologies: Opportunities and threats]
I would like to appologize in advance for not qualifying these references. I did not read them in their entirety or review/critique their content prior to posting this thread. The purpose of the reference is to provide more detailed and elaborate information regarding point of topic. Please regard these as such.
[ Edited ]
--sunny Wed Jan 21 21:22:52 2004
charmed_quark - Thu Jan 22 20:04:34 2004
An interesting problem.
Thinking out loud:
In terms of energy efficiency and long term cost, solar power is an elegant solution.
For a quick recharge rate, microwave seems to be the best way to go. Cost could be prohibative especially in terms of energy use.
A few years back, I heard about a project of the Univerity of Utah using ultrasonics to refrigerate. There may be some potential along those lines, but I doubt efficiency would be better than it is today.
Precise control of temperature is actually the easiest problem to solve. Have electronic valves on both the hot and cold water pipe. Then have thermal couple on each pipe and a dsp that calculates the necessary flow from each pipe to reach the setpoint. Or have one thermal couple on the output and a comparator adjust the valves. Comparator would be much cheaper, but would have a delay time.
Temp control would be an afternoon project and a prototype could be built for under a $100 using spare parts (values are going to be the biggest cost, followed by a LED display).
Microwave water heater. That might take a little more thought, but would be fun to try, if it hasn't already been done.
--charmed_quark Thu Jan 22 20:04:34 2004
sunny - Sun Feb 8 13:40:06 2004
I agree entirely with your technology assessment. It would take only a few prototype experiments to achieve a desired result. I am interested in following up on this after doing the necessary technology research to determine the most likely candidate technologies.
I am wondering why a solution has not already been created and marketed. Current technology in this area is horribly overpriced, inneficient, and grossly out-of-date. I think that ideas in this area likely already exist, but that the market and political legislation and regulation against the types of devices that you have proposed are preventing technological innovation.
The creation of a solution for an area in which long-standing technology has the entire market is not simply a technological solution. For any idea that would revolutionize an industry it becomes a technological, economic, legal, and in today's economics, a pervasive political problem.
It should not be a political problem, but our current laws allow politics to determine economics because of the fear of 'disruptive technology.' I believe that it is this political determination of economics that discriminates against new and revolutionary ideas and disables their potential markets and market value. I would argue that it is the political regulation of "disruptive technology" that causes the slow and decaying failure of economy. Product development and technological innovation should rarely be a problem for politics.
I would like to work on a solution to both the creation of a prototype device and the political economics that inhibit such technologies from entering a regulated market.
Several devices are currently being marketed:
Environ Technologies
US DOE: Demand (Tankless or Instantaneous) Water Heaters
What I would like to precisely point out can be found on the DOE website:
| Demand water heaters are common in Japan and Europe. They began appearing in the United States about 25 years ago. Unlike "conventional" tank water heaters, tankless water heaters heat water only as it is used, or on demand. A tankless unit has a heating device that is activated by the flow of water when a hot water valve is opened. Once activated, the heater delivers a constant supply of hot water. The output of the heater, however, limits the rate of the heated water flow. |
| -- DOE website |
Why has it taken over 25 years to get this product into US markets? Many millions of water heaters were sold between 1975 and 2000. Was it a technology problem? If so, why are they common in other countries, but seem to be non-existent until just a couple of years ago in the US?
It may be that in this instance I am incorrect and there are technological reasons, but until I find out more regarding this industry and other similar instances of markets being stifled by political agenda.
Does anyone have some good examples of this? I sort of started ranting about a specific product that should be prevalent and leapt into the question of why it is not already pervasive.
Genetic research comes to mind immediately (particularly stem-cell research). As does automobile design in the US (use of Wankel type engines in US automobiles).
References:
Bartleby.com - automobile
Classic Cars Page
see section: "The rise and fall of rotary engine"
--sunny Sun Feb 8 13:40:06 2004
