Scott

-Monday, October 6 After extensive planning of the original solar-steam generator, I realized that it would be very impractical to build/maintain whether on a small or large scale. Therefore I concluded it would be not so fruitful to pursue this path and officially ditched my plan.

-Wednesday, October 8 I discovered the Photoelectric Effect in the Chemistry Text. At first I was under the impression that the potential difference between the two metals on either end of the vacuum tube was enough to generate its own current, but further investigation revealed that most circuits involve a battery to provide the voltage difference. If the tube generates electricity, then I will investigate the spectrum of light emitted from the OMNIMAX screen to see if some of the energy "wasted" by the projector can be reclaimed to run, say, a popcorn machine. If it needs a battery, then the photoelectric effect creates, essentially, a "light switch," and I will therefore investigate something that will be more environmentally friendly when it is running while a light is on. But the question still remains: can the photoelectric effect generate its own electricity and enough to support a load???

-Tuesday, October 14 Over the weekend I talked and mulled and thought about this whole photoelectric project, and have resolved it very impractical. The vacuum tube idea may or may not generate its own electricity, and this depends on the type of metal. Most metals that have a long enough minimum wavelength (copper, zinc) to eject the electrons are too expensive to be practical in the OMNIMAX theatre. Also, you'd have to worry about the integrity of the vacuum tube itself, where to hide it, etc. And last but not least these light frequencies are all ultraviolet or higher than the visible spectrum, so they are probably filtered out of the light of the projector or not emitted in any quanitity that I would find useful. It's still on the back burner, but the photoelectric generator is more or less dead. I'm still convinced that the IMAX theatre/projector is a worthwhile project, as it has to use a lot of power and this power may or may not be appreciated, depending on how many people are in the theatre. It occurs to me that projectors generate a lot of heat energy depending on the bulb and mechanisms. I doubt it would be enough to boil water, and it is an inconsistent supply, but I have to wonder if there is a way of harnassing it...

After researching the technology in the work period, I discovered several key concepts about the IMAX projector here. It most likely uses a xenon short-arc bulb, operating at a whopping 15 kW. The electrodes in the bulb are water-cooled, that is, the tungsten is attached to another metal (probably molybdenum) and this metal extends out of the quartz chamber and is cooled with circulating water. Interestingly, these bulbs use quartz as opposed to glass because quartz maintains its optical clarity at high temperatures better than glass and also handles the immense (25 atmospheres!!!!!) pressure of the xenon inside. This technology means that there is a lot of hot (or relatively hot) water being produced from these bulbs. If this water could somehow then be circulated through pipes in the floor, it would efficiently heat the room and only where it mattered; most air vents would heat the top of the dome before where the people were. Would it be possible to hook up such a rig? This also means that the room would only be heated when the projector was on/warming up, which is FANTASTIC because that's when we care about it being hot. I e-mailed Glenn Shaver who is in charge of the OMNIMAX theatre. I will have to find out where this water is going and how accesible it is.

Wednesday, October 15

In communicating with John Gifford, who was referred to me by Glenn Shaver, I have reevaluated my plan. It seems as though the heating of the theatre is a big concern, as with the venting system they currently have, the top of the sphere is being heated much earlier than where the people sit. It apparently gets very unpleasant at the top of the sphere, especially in the summer when the air conditioning fails. To cool the lamp, they circulate distilled water through a small system of copper pipes and through a heat exchanger with glycol. They pump the glycol through, essentially, an air conditioner to cool the glycol and thus remove the heat produced by the lamp. There are two possible ways I can attack this now. 1) Put a system of pipes through the theatre that the glycol cycles through before it reaches the Cooler and after it interacts with the water. This means that while the projector warms up, the Cooler is having almost no effect because the glycol is losing its heat in the theatre. Then, when the glycol heats up, the cooler will start in order to prevent it from heating too much, but it won't run nearly as much (thus saving energy) because the glycol will begin to heat the theatre. As this process occurs, the vent system will be brought back, saving more energy. The pump required to do this already exists and is pumping just the same as it would be in my scenario, it just has to pump a larger volume of glycol. All of the elements to cause this already exist, it just requires a bunch of pipe, perhaps some screening to prevent things from getting too close to the pipes in the theatre. The major problem with this is that if any of the glycol tubing leaks, then that makes for serious difficulties. This is just a technical thing and I'm sure I can devise a way to fix it easily. 2) I could figure out a better way to cool the bulb and use this heat in the theatre effectively. All the fluids create an impracticality when it comes to leaks, so this may be a more long-term solution. But I think 1) is very practical and not tooooooo pricey. The other main problem with 1) is that there would have to be a shut-off valve so that when it is already hot in the theatre, the hot glycol does not make it worse. This means that the cooler would be working harder in the summer months, and that these empty tubes will be sitting there. Perhaps circulating cold glycol through the system? How does one acquire cold glycol? Hm. I will be meeting with John in person next week to discuss these things. I must admit I'm pretty happy that I've found something that actually is a problem and has potential to exist!!!

Tuesday, October 21

Sherise and I went to meet John Gifford in the morning at the IMAX theatre. I was there a bit earlier and went with John down into the belly of the theatre where the cooling units are stored. There is indeed a small heat exchanger which the distilled water passes through that is essentially (if I understood correctly) a chamber with tubes of water surrounded by the glycol. The water is then filtered very carefully to absolutely minimize any gunk buildup in the system which could literally cripple the projector. The water from the bulb reaches an average temperature of 85 F (about 29 C) but the glycol only reaches about 50 F (10 C) after it is heated by the water. Therefore, the glycol is realtively useless as far as circulating in the theatre to heat it.

The absolute best-case scenario as far as heat would be to circulate the water directly from the bulb through pipes in the theatre except that the water is pretty corrosive and if there were to be a leak somewhere in the theatre then all hell breaks loose, and the bulb would most likely fail. This is not a good thing.

So I came up with a seemingly very feasible solution; put a completely separate system in place with a second heat exchanger that gets the water //just outside of the bulb// and exchanges with a water-glycol mixture. It is this mixture which circulates in the theatre and heats it. As it turns out, this system has very very many benefits. 1) The water-glycol mix (I believe) will absorb more heat than just the glycol (it may depend on how I rig it) and therefore be able to provide an adequate amount of heat for the theatre itself, so it may actually impact in a significant way the temperature of the theatre. This means that the heating system currently in place will use less energy and the theatre will (possibly) heat from the bottom-up as opposed to the way they do it now which is actually from the top-down. 2) The water from the bulb will exchange most of its heat with the first system, meaning that the second glycol system will not have to be cooled as much. The second system will still be there of course but it will be less necessary and use less energy as it operates. 3) The lamp is on pretty much all day, but the amperage is varied from a "stand-by mode" to an operating mode. This means that the heating of the theatre will vary depending on showtimes, which is precisely what we want. This means that, due to the nature of the projector, less energy will be used heating the theatre when there's nobody in it and more energy when a show is about to start and there will be people in there. 4) The pipes containing the water-glycol mix could be placed behind the seats with relative ease. A small trough may have to be dug between rows and a false covering put over top, but it's not rocket science. This means that the system is expandable or customizable depending on the benefits observed. 5) Since the water-glycol system is separate, it can be shut off if there is a leak //without interefering with any of the current workings//. The system would just operate the same way as it is now while the problem is fixed. This means that it is not an ordeal to fix if anything goes wrong, and therefore less stress than if I tried to fiddle with the existing system. 6) The heat exchanger for the second system would be placed just beside the projector booth, which is at floor level, minimizing the amount of heat loss as either substance travels through their respective pipes.

As far as my project goes and what I will actually do, I think I'd be interested in making a working model of this system. I could get a flask and heat water with a bunsen burner to simulate the heat from the bulb, and then circulate that water through clear tubes to a transparent heat exchanger (it's got to be more complicated than a couple tubes inside a box...more research to be done about that) where I would have a water-glycol mix circulating again. This means I need:

A flask or other ball Clear tubing, probably just plastic hose Two really inexpensive pumps (I'm talking like, desk-fountain grade) A heat exchanger Glycol

I can get most of this stuff at my favourite store in the world, Canadian Tire. I will have to look up their prices before Friday so that I can get an accurate budget together. Not sure if they sell a tiny pump separately. I will also have to find out where I am to get Glycol to mix with the water; as I understood, it is essentially anti-freeze? Perhaps just anti-freeze will suffice for the model. Then I could have a thermometer or something measuring the temperature (energy) out and in and therefore calculate efficiency. Could I rig a Cricket or something similar to do these calculations???

(P.S. I'm pretty pumped about this. It may actually really feasibly maybe work!!! It's certainly better than my solar-steam roof bomb I had going before.)

Wednesday, October 22

I did a bit of research into the practicality of making a working model of this and found it to be not very much. Just making the heat exchanger itself would be ridiculous. Therefore, I have concluded that I will make a 3D computer model of the system. My dad has software which I think will work on my computer and I am literate in and it will be very cool to have a 3D video of things whizzing around and stuff. This means that, unless they want to pay me for making the computer model, my budget will be nothing. This is handy.

In talking to my dad I have revised my system. I will now make use of a heat pump which takes advantage of the energy it takes to change phase from a gas to a liquid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_conditioner has an excellent diagram (just below "Refrigeration Cycle") showing how it works. Essentially it will go like this:

A cool temperature, low pressure gas will exchange heat with the distilled water and hopefully approach 85F. A compressor will then compress this gas, making it heat up so that it is now more useful for heating purposes. The high temperature, high pressure gas will cycle through the theatre and several air exchangers to lose it's heat to the theatre and become a liquid. The now medium temperature, high pressure liquid passes through a small pinhole in the tube which allows it to expand. The expanding liquid cools and becomes a cool temperature, low pressure gas. Repeat.

This system means that though the bulb temperature is only 85F, I can turn it into 100F relatively easily and boost its heating capacity. This of course means the compressor must take power, but it won't take all that much and this floor heating method is still much more efficient than the top-down method currently in use. I will save you money. This also means that when you shut this system off for the summer, you don't have water and glycol sitting in pipes, you've just got a gas. And if it leaks it's much less messy than if water-glycol leaked. The system will have a bypass valve so in the summer the system will work just like normal, and this is fine because the cooling from the top-down isn't nearly as inefficient as the heating from the top-down. It's mucha better.

I'm still going for the computer model though. My dad will bring the software to install on my computer this weekend.

Thursday, October 23

I set the benchmarks/final product specific to my project. They are as follows:

My final product will be a couple of slides in a PowerPoint presentation. Some will consist of pictures of the 3D model to be made with numbers and references to refer to efficiency, cost of installation, heating capacity of the new system, etc. One slide will be an embedded animation of the model showing red/blue, big/small arrows to represent hot/cold, high/low pressure substance circulating through the system. I will use SolidWorks (a program my dad uses for 3D-modelling) to create the model, and I am mostly literate in how to manipulate simple models and shapes. Woot! October 31 · SolidWorks played with to regain literacy, sketch of assembly complete and idea of what parts to model concrete. Numbers on the horizon. November 7 · Parts began, necessary calculations outlined and approach finalized. November 14 · Parts near completion, final assembly completely visualized, numbers well underway in calculating. November 21 · Parts of the final 3D assembly complete, assemblies started. Animation planned and what rough script for presentation done. November 28 · Most of the 3D model complete, all numbers calculated and ready. (How much money the compressor will cost, how hot will be pipes be, how much more efficient will this system be, where will it be) · Skeleton of PowerPoint presentation created, idea of flow of my section of the presentation concrete-ish. December 5 · 3D Model complete, all that remains is to take screenshots describing it, put these pictures into a PowerPoint and embed an animation of it working into the show. December 12 · 3D Animation done and in a presentation with slides describing the setup. Show complete.

If you hadn't noticed, these are periodical Friday benchmarks. Therefore, if I miss one I will have the weekend immediately after to get caught up. Fridays are god days to self-assess on the project.

Sunday, October 26

I got SolidWorks 2006 from my dad on the weekend. It will take a while for me to become fluent in it but I have time to create my model. It's pretty easy. The system I'm putting in place is pretty much an air-conditioner where instead of cooling air it is cooling water. I e-mailed John Bradshaw is the Facility Operations (Manager?) and he will be able to give me a contact who can give me the logistics of a system like this. It seems pretty feasible/easy to understand and put in place.

A couple of links showing an animation of a system like this and a list of portable cooling units like the one I want: http://www.advantageengineering.com/schematics/mkaSchematic.php?NU=9 http://www.advantageengineering.com/portableChillers/IKA/ikaGeneral.php

Also little known facts:

On a full house (all 320 seats full), the people in the theatre alone will generate more than twice the heat as generated from the bulb. (each person generates about 100W, equating to roughly 32 kW of power). With my system in place (anticipated recovery of 10 kW) there will be 42 kW of heating on a full theatre that is not from the system.

· The word IMAX is derived from maximum image. · Stretched out, the film for a 45-minute IMAX feature would be eight times taller than the CN Tower. · IMAX film is strong enough to pull a truck. The IMAX screen is 4,500 times bigger than the average television screen. Woot!

Thursday, October 30

I have loosely played around with SolidWorks to regain my comprehension, but it's a bit trickier than I imagined before. I'm sure it won't be an issue. I wrote an equation I hope to solve for the final project a little while ago:

(cost of installation) + (cost of running) <= (savings from duct heating) + (savings from glycol chiller)

Since "cost of installation" would be a flat fee, there will be a period of time for the system to "pay for itself." I will take care of most of the cost attributes while Sherise will investigate the savings. This means that I need to find out what kinds of equipment are needed, how much energy they take and all that fun stuff. I will also have to "guess" as to how much energy the system will produce/relieve of the current system to give to Sherise for her calculations.

Monday, November 3

HAPPY NOVEMBER!

Anyways, I have decided a couple of things. First of all, the system I will have is going to be an enclosed unit by itself, similar to the ones linked to above. There won't be a bunch of pipes run through the system, as I believe that to be too difficult to esimate the usage. Plus, with all the "innards" of the system exposed, it makes for much harder maintenance, which is a key factor if this system is to be successful. Therefore, the unit I will have will be a chiller by itself where the distilled water can go through a bypass valve to get to and then the heat will probably get ducted into the theatre. I think the guys at PROFAC are the ones I need to contact. They are a government organization who do all this stuff for Ontario Facilities, as in, public places and if something goes wrong we call them. I think they may even provide funding for the program because any green initiative nowadays looks good on the government. Therefore, the OSC may get all the savings and only a little bit of the cost. Woot!

The only unique thing about this unit would be that it would have to be ridiculously quiet so that no noise transfers into the theatre through the duct. I still want to heat from the floor because that's a ridiculously good idea. The thing about an exposed system is that it can disperse its heat through the whole theatre instead of just heating an isolated spot in the duct. It's still on the table I guess. I'll draw up coherent proposals for both and submit them to the guys at PROFAC and see how that goes. I'll have to shop around for the best unit. I also thought about just ducting the heat from the glycol chiller into the theatre BUT the glycol is going from 50F to 44F; not the kind of heat we need for the theatre. Even though the heated air from the chiller is going to be warmer, I still doubt it's anywhere near the target 100F we need to get anywhere near efficient heating.

A thought occurs to me: even though the exposed system disperses heat through the theatre, the concentration of heat will be pretty localized. All the exposed system means is that there's just more gas and pipes for it to work. I guess I could just duct the air from the contained system to several locations and may even get a better effect because there will be several pockets of hot concentration and I could disperse them through the floor so that the heat will overlap at the edges of the concentration spheres so that no place gets particularly short-handed. It makes sense in my head, I swear. I bet the contained system is the better way to go. I can throw vents into the floors behind the seats in the same areas I was planning to run pipes before so space isn't an issue. Ok cool. Perhaps my new benchmark for the end of the week will be to have coherent proposals for the two systems done and submitted to PROFAC along with the other benchmark.

Friday, November 7

I decided a closed system is the one I'm after. A closed system just makes more sense for maintenance purposes and such, and plus there are closed systems available for purchase for exactly these uses which adds a lot of convenience to the mix. I drew up a coherent proposal for the system and sent it to John Gifford to get some of the numbers I'm missing for key calculations, especially about the model/cost of the chiller.

Here is the proposal: Cool. I am going to model the current system on SolidWorks first for one/a few slides of my presentation to make sure people understand how it works. This means I can do this while waiting for the specifics of the system I'm proposing. I shall start hardcore work on this this weekend.

Tuesday, November 11

I got the numbers I was after from John Gifford. He said the distilled water is only cooled to 80 or 81F which equates to a temperature difference of 0.556 degrees Celsius. With this figure and the rate at which the water is pumped through the system (8.5 gallons per minute) I crunched that the system must ust 1.2479 kW. The chiller is measured in tonnes, so with a convertor it seems as though I need a chiller of 0.3548 tonnes of capacity. The model from the above website that fits this specification is M1-.5A-2301. http://www.advantageengineering.com/portableChillers/IKA/ikaSpecsPrice.php?DP=Yes&model=3&volts=2301&count=Y The voltage I assumed was the closest to the existing voltage and therefore hopefully the easiest to access and install. This unit is 33" x 18" x 24". It weighs 205 pounds and costs approxmiately $3165. It says the ambient temperature of the air-cooled condensor is only 90F but I'm not sure how this would be measured (as in, what temperatures the water that it's cooling were at would affect this...no?). More investigation into this is needed.

I can't imagine how the water is only cooled by 4F but I suppose when it's moving at 8.5 gpm it doesn't really have time to do anything else. Perhaps if my system can handle a higher load, the pump can be lowered as the water can be cooled more. A higher temperature differential means more energy is transferred into the theatre. This is dangerous territory because the water simply cannot exceed 85F at any point in the circuit. I'm sure calibration could be done to ensure this, as though the pump will move the water slower the water will start of cooler. Hmm...

I will have to work on my powerpoint skeleton for the presentation to give to Tony for Friday's assessment. Too bad I will miss it due to my ultrasound. Oh well.

Monday, December 1

I haven't posted for a while. This is because I haven't worked on this for a while. Not gonna lie. I feel bad. But, feeling bad doesn't get people anywhere so here's where I stand.

I screwed up my calculations before. The water currently experiences 8.89 kW of cooling which equates to 2.53 T of refridgeration. The site I found before sells the chillers at 2 or 3 tonnes. If I buy a 3 T chiller, the rate of the water flow can be changed accordingly. I am still thinking about whether it would be beneficial to do so or not.....

...

Ok I'm back from the meeting and I have a mental picture of how this would work. The problem with the temperature in relation to the bulb is the maximum temperature. It CANNOT exceed 86F. It just can't. If I buy the 3T chiller, I could slow down the pump. Slower pump = bigger change in temperature from the bulb. 3T chiller = bigger change in temperature from the chiller. Therefore, the 3T chiller will chill to a lower minimum temperature and have a greater temperature change if I want to go that route.

A 2T chiller would require a higher pump rate. The change in temperature would be less and the maximum temperature the same.

Factors to consider:

I) A 2T chiller is significantly cheaper than a 3T chiller. The increase in pump consumption would be far less than the decrease in chiller consumption methinks. As far as energy consumption of the system the 2T chiller would have a lower value.

II) BUT. The temperature chance is what matters. Higher temperature change = higher temperature air pumped into the theatre. That makes a difference.

III) Noise. 3T chiller = more noise. More noise = angry movie viewers. This is not a good thing.

I e-mailed John Gifford to find out if the pump can be calibrated. It can certainly be lowered (probably) in order to make use of the 3T chiller but not sure if it can be raised. As far as consumption of the system goes, the 3T chiller can probably be calibrated down to the 2.5 we need and therefore use exactly the right amount of energy. But if we're shelling out $7300 (no joke. http://www.advantageengineering.com/portableChillers/IKA/ikaSpecsPrice.php?DP=Yes&model=8&volts=2303&count=Y) to buy this chiller, shouldn't we want to use it all?

So now we need numbers.

a) The energy consumption of the 3T chiller calibrated to 2.5T. b) The energy consumption of the 3T chiller at max and lowered pump c) The energy consumption of the 2T chiller at max at raised pump. d) The temperature output of the chillers in all three above scenarios.

The 3T chiller gets you 95F at 2.5 CFM (cubic feet per minute) and the 2T chiller gets you 95F air at 2 CFM. So the 3T chiller does give off more heat to use. This is a good thing.

The 2T chiller is $1040 cheaper. I will see from John how high the pump can go. I am struggling to figure out how I would have to calibrate the system to fix the flow rate and the temperature change to produce a constant max temperature. I think I will have to crunch numbers about the heating capacity of the bulb and then set up two equations with two unknowns and solve. Except....shouldn't the bulb be heating the same amount? ...Yes. Dang. That gets me T = T then. Helpful for proving that the fabric of the space-time continuum is in order, but not helpful for me. (That was a joke...hur hur.)

Anyway. I am hungry. The e-mail is sent. My brain is back on track with this project. Much work to follow I am sure.

Wednesday, December 3rd

Ok. I am going to have three scenarios calculated methinks. They are as follows:

a) A 3T chiller is bought and the hot air is pumped into vents in the floor of the OMNIMAX theatre (predicted highest cost, more efficient heating of the theatre, probably 10:13 ratio between heat from chiller to heat from system) b) A 3T chiller is bought but the hot air is pumped into the existing system. (middle cost, inefficient heating method. 1:1 ratio.) c) The existing glycol chiller's air is diverted into the existing system during the winter months. (predicted lowest cost, but the air may not be hot enough to make use of.)

More than likely, a) and b) will turn out to be incredibly impractical. I shopped around for another 3T chiller and found one for the bargain price of $6163.00 + S&H at LegacyChillers instead of AdvantageEngineering.([|http://legacychillers.com/quotewizard/member~nav~quote_wizard:step_4~type~air~tank~false~split~true~vline~false.php]) I will have to have another meeting/walk around of the theatre with John Gifford to see what the most efficient placement of the beast is and how much (VERY rough) the installation of the floor vent(s) would cost. More than likely, there will be vents only at the bottom row, the presumption being that the heat will rise from there. The LegacyChillers model does not give me the CFM of the fan, whereas the AdvantageEngineering one does. 2.5 cubic feet per minute of 95F air is pumped from the AE model, which is decent enough for heating I suppose. We're probably talking 3 vents in the bottom row spaced out evenly. Not sure if there's even enough room to even have these vents. We'll have to see about that.

The installation of b) may be more costly than I think. I'll have to place the chiller very carefully. Perhaps b) isn't practical at all either. Now that I think about it, I would have to get the hot air from below the theatre (where the water is) all the way up to the top to get to the current heating ducts. I know that getting the heat from the glycol chiller to the floor is completely impractical so I won't model that one. Perhaps just the two scenarios will be analyzed.

Also, the 3D model is probably on hiatus because it takes a lot of effort and I can get pictures/diagrams of everything I want anyway. There's not a whole lot I can do with a 3D model anyway...........oh well. Sacrifices must be made I suppose.

I will have to e-mail John Gifford about a tour of the theatre again. I will also need numbers for the savings side. This means the current power consumption of the glycol chiller (which we assume is 100% relieved) and the current rate ($/kW) that we pay for the energy to heat. I might have to contact ProFac about the specs on the chiller and then just Ontario Hydro's number for the price as a good approximation.

The power consumption of the new chiller should roughly approximate the glycol chiller because it is equivalent energy reduction of the coolant, whether glycol or water, so perhaps that can be roughly negated. Not sure which one would consume more...

Two e-mails to be sent. Baha.

Thursday, December 4

I met with John Gifford again today to scope out the numbers I'd need for estimating the cost of these systems. Three scenarios can be analyzed, while two infringe on each other.

I) A 3T chiller is placed in the equipment room right below the theatre and close to the current heat exchanger. Operating at 2.5T capacity, the chiller would dump hot air into the theatre via ducting that goes into the bottom row of seats. There is space hollowed out there for intake air from the theatre that has a solid concrete floor and walls. The ducting would only have to be about 8-10 ft long to get from the equipment room to the theatre and so it is a very conventient location. The concrete is not convenient. II) A 2T chiller is placed in a similar location and the current chiller remains in effect for the remaining heat. This chiller does not have the airflow that the 3T chiller has but it is cheaper. Mucha cheaper. Also, if it ever fails, the glycol chiller is already running so you get immediate compensation and the bulb doesn't blow up. This is a good thing.

III) The exhaust air from the glycol chiller is ducted into the current heating system. About 70-80 ft of ducting will get the heated air to the place in the system that is before several filters. This is the optimum case because the heated air is recovered and filtered in order to ensure breathability.

I'll need the figures from ProFac to find out what kind of heat we're talking about coming from the top chiller, and even they might not be able to get them for me. If they can't, I'll have to research and ballpark which is not what I would like to do but I would if needbe. They have yet to e-mail me with a response. In my original equation, I factor in savings from the glycol chiller being shut off and costs of running the installed chiller. I am now thinking that without specifications on the second chiller, I might as well assume they are roughly cancelled out. The energy all has to go somewhere. Technically, the glycol chiller isn't working as hard as the other one simply because the water/glycol loses heat by circulating. Plus, you're using two pumps instead of one so that uses power. More chillers = more power consumed. Case closed. But, I'm just not sure how I'd go about calculating that. I guess I have electrical specs on the 2T and 3T from the website so I can go off that. I'm pretty much relying on ProFac for the completion of my calculations.

Note: None of these will happen in the OMNIMAX at the OSC. It is just too crazy impractical to retrofit this building to use such little heat. However, as far as a philosophical benefit, this project does have much benefit. In designing a new theatre, systems like these are relatively easy to incorporate. Better placement of equipment, concrete poured with ducts in mind and other such considerations make this job so much easier. Therefore, this implies that in buliding new facilities, a rather tough retrofit becomes relatively easy and you save money. It also makes the strong argument that everything you might "like" to accomplish with a building just for the sake of "greening" it just simply makes no sense. Obsession with greening is a bad thing.

Too late to start over. Time to busy myself with the tedious and futile just for a couple of marks.

Friday, December 12

If you have read all of this, I congratulate you and announce, to your probable relief, that this is my last entry of my personal log.

I have found the approximate (VERY approximate) paybacks for three different ideal scenarios (where the system is installed during design of the theatre) and then I have taken the most efficient of those and roughly estimated the paybacks if you tried to install it into the theatre we have. There are as follows: (Note: The theatre and therefore this sytem is only effective for 5.25 hours per day. 10:45-4:00.) 1) 3T chiller dialed down to 2.5T and placed underneath the theatre. Cost: $7865 Savings: $1.39/h Payback: 3.93 years

2) 2T chiller + Roof diversion Cost: $8175 Savings: $1.31/h Payback: 4.34 years

3) 2T chiller alone Cost: $6775 Savings: $1.10/h Payback: 4.28 years

Scenario 1) with $5000 to install: Cost: $12865 Savings: $1.39/h Payback: 6.43 yrs

After payback, the 3T chiller system saves $1999.52/year.

I assumed: a) a 10:13 relief from floor heating as opposed to roof heating b) no difference in energy consumption between the two chillers due to a lack of specifications on the roof chiller c) constant heat relief for the 5.25 hours

None of these three assumptions is verifiable. Also, the $5000 is probably a large underestimate of the cost of installation in this theatre. These numbers are not exactly reliable but they are certainly more attractive than I had previously assumed. It most likely will not happen in the theatre we have here, but the 2.96 year payback for a theatre when this system would be considered is a much more attractive number. Therefore, my project can be used as a demonstration to IMAX to implore them to include a system like this in a new theatre.

4.8 years payback. Not too shabby. All I have left to do is complete my computer model (I did get the swing of the software so I can pull off the model) and form a presentation about my project. I must say, I am very satisfied with my work on this project because it has brought closure to a previously uninvestigated area. Heating the OMNIMAX theatre with the projector bulb. Think about it.

Saturday, December 13

I lied. I had to upload the video I made of the 3D model of the theatre spinning around so that Doug can download it and put it in the presentation. I cannot access the source the powerpoint will want from my computer as it will most likely be on Doug's thumb drive/a school computer. media type="youtube" key="djXtXqwz3WU" height="295" width="480"

Scott