What exists today
Assessed honestly, and updated as things change. The right-hand column matters at least as much as the left.
| Element | Status | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering concept | Exists | Separation architecture, intended flow path and stage roles are described and internally consistent. |
| Calculated physics | Partial | Settling requirements derived from a Stokes-type relationship. Not independently checked, and not yet validated against a numerical model. |
| Cost model | Indicative | Built from published figures and stated assumptions. No supplier quotes, no site survey. |
| Physical prototype or test rig | Does not exist | No bench-top apparatus has been assembled and no test has been run. |
| Simulation output | Does not exist | No CFD or particle-transport study has been carried out. This is the next step. |
| CAD or engineering drawings | Does not exist | The 3D view on the concept page is an explanatory illustration, not a model. |
| Independent test data | Does not exist | No laboratory has tested anything. There are no performance results of any kind. |
| Patent application | None filed | The novelty position has not been established. No application has been filed anywhere. |
| Certification | None held | No certification body has assessed this. Any future certification would be a long process after a working device exists. |
| Pilot site or partner | None | No building has been identified and no partner has been engaged. |
| Commercial entity | None | There is no company, no funding and no investment being sought. FifeCIC is supporting the enquiry, not selling a product. |
On a conventional readiness scale this sits at the very bottom: an idea with a physical rationale attached. We are not going to dress that up.
The questions that decide it
Five things stand between this concept and a credible case. Each one has a route to an answer that does not require building anything yet.
1. Can the required force be generated in a compact device?
The design point is 2,500–3,000 G at roughly 80 PSI inlet. Higher force means higher velocity, which means greater pressure loss and more wear on every surface in contact with the water.
- How we intend to answer it Analytical and numerical modelling of the chamber at design flow, to establish whether the target is reachable within an acceptable pressure budget before anything is fabricated.
2. Does the light-fraction stage actually work, or does it concentrate the problem?
This is the risk that would sink the concept fastest. A chamber tuned to eject heavy PET can drive buoyant polypropylene into the core — which is the stream intended to be clean. A device that removes one plastic and concentrates another would be worse than no device at all.
- How we intend to answer it Particle-tracking simulation of both density fractions through the same geometry, reported separately. Any result that shows net transfer into the product stream ends the concept in its current form and we will say so.
- The deeper question underneath it A hydrocyclone sorts material by density difference in a centrifugal field. That is well proven for dense solids and much weaker for material that barely differs from water. The central core is also typically air rather than water, so a buoyant particle may sit at a free surface instead of being skimmed. It is possible that buoyant microplastics need a different separation principle altogether. The model is being designed to be able to tell us that, and a negative answer would be a useful result.
3. Does the settling relationship hold at the sizes that matter?
The G-force figures quoted on the concept page come from a Stokes-type relationship, which assumes laminar flow around the particle. At high rotational speeds and small particle sizes that assumption becomes questionable.
- How we intend to answer it Compare the analytical result against a numerical model that does not assume laminar settling, and report where the two diverge. This is the kind of checking that is cheap in simulation and expensive in hardware.
4. Is the evaporation loop a genuine energy gain?
The concept uses building waste heat to evaporate the reject stream. Waste heat and available heat are not the same thing, and the heat may not be there when the loop needs to run.
- How we intend to answer it A heat-balance study against realistic building profiles, including seasonal variation and the case where no useful waste heat is available. If the loop only works on paper with ideal conditions, that needs to be known early.
5. Can it be maintained in the real world?
A separator processing building water will foul, scale and wear. A design that performs beautifully on day one and needs dismantling every month is not a solution to anything.
- How we intend to answer it Review of fouling behaviour in comparable hydrocyclone and water-treatment installations, feeding into a maintenance interval as a stated design assumption rather than a claim.
Proposed programme
No phase of this has started
The sequence below is a plan, not progress. Nothing has been scheduled, funded or begun. It is here so that anyone evaluating the concept can see the intended route from an idea to something measured.
Digital simulation and design study
Numerical modelling of the separation chamber, both density fractions tracked separately, and a heat-balance review. No hardware. The purpose is to answer the five questions above and to kill the concept cheaply if it deserves killing.
The specification is published. Read the Phase 0 simulation brief — what must be modelled, what must be reported, and what would count as a negative result.
Bench-top validation
A small test rig using water dosed with characterised particles, measured against a defined protocol. This is where design targets are either met or replaced with reality.
Independent verification and publication
Testing by a party with no stake in the outcome, with the method and raw data published alongside whatever the result turns out to be.
Pilot installation
Only meaningful if earlier phases succeed, and only possible with a host building willing to take part. No site has been identified.
The rules we will hold ourselves to
These are commitments about how this project talks about itself. They exist because research that overstates itself is worse than research that stays unpublished.
No unmeasured performance figures
No removal efficiency, energy saving or payback period will appear on this site as a finding until it has been measured and independently checked. Design targets stay labelled as targets.
No legal status without a document
No claim of a patent application, a granted patent or a registered trademark will appear unless the corresponding filing exists and can be referenced. The current status is: none filed.
Negative results get published too
If simulation shows the concept does not work at the particle sizes that matter, that finding will be published here in the same place the concept is described. A failed idea honestly reported is a useful contribution.
The intellectual-property position
Establishing whether there is anything protectable here is part of the feasibility work, not an afterthought. The intended arrangement combines well-established industrial techniques — hydrocyclones have been used for decades — in a specific application. That may be novel, or it may be an obvious combination. We do not know yet, and we are not going to claim either.
The honest position: no application has been filed, no attorney has been engaged, and no freedom-to-operate search has been carried out. The next step is a prior-art and novelty review, and we would welcome contact from anyone with experience of patent work in water treatment or separation technology.
Concept and design rights are reserved. We would rather find a constructive route with the right people than publish defensively and hope.
Something here you can help with?
Simulation, separation engineering, water treatment, patent work, or hosting a pilot — all of it is genuinely welcome. This is an enquiry, and enquiries need people.