Posted by Ulysses on March 26, 2007, 2:34 am
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:35:48 -0800, "Ulysses"
> >
> >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:29:03 -0800, "Ulysses"
> >>
> >>
> >> >As for the 8gpm at 500' of head I'm pumping to about that height now
and
> >> >I've measured it at 17 gpm. I must have a really good pump. I'll
have
> >to
> >> >go look for the info on it and see what brank it is. It was not
cheap.
> >>
> >> Something doesn't sound right. Even a 3hp should be more like 13 gpm
> >> at 500'. Are you sure about your elevation measurements? You should
> >> only count the depth to the water, plus the extra height to the tank.
> >> That would make it 455' plus friction loss if I understand your setup
> >> correctly. What kind of layout is your property that the storage tank
> >> is 440' above the well? How long is the pipe run between the well and
> >> the tank, and what size is the pipe?
> >>
> >> Wayne
> >>
> >
> >Lemmesee.... my pump is installed at 120' and my well pipe is about 3'
above
> >ground level and my well is located about 5' higher than the lowest point
on
> >my property. The difference between the highest and lowest points is
440'.
> >My house is approximately 80' below the highest point (it's very hilly
> >here--gentle slope). So that would be 112' (120'-8') + 440 = 552'. If
we
> >subtract where the house is that's 472'. When I stated the head heights
I
> >was not trying to be exact but only general. At one point I think I said
it
> >was over 600' but I attribute that to my brain being tired from trying to
> >absorb too many VAs and such.
> Then pumping head (static water level -> top of tank) is about 455',
> and max is 560 if the well draws down. Add about another 20' for the
> friction loss of 600' of 1.25" PVC. (depends on flow rate
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pvc-pipes-friction-loss-d_802.html )
> >I'm not absolutely certain about the height to the house but it's
probably
> >within 20'. When I ordered the well the driller wanted to know *exactly*
> >how high my hill was. The elevations are stated on my parcel map and I
> >verified this with an altimeter. I can't seem to find the specific
> >paperwork that came with my well pump at the moment and I have two
different
> >proposals (estimates) from the well driller for 2 different pumps. One
says
> >"1 1/2 HP 230 volt single phase 20 gallon per minute. The other says 2
HP
> >230 volt single phase 15 gallon per minute. I'm not sure if either of
these
> >is the one I ended up with but I remember it was 2 HP
> The easiest way to nail it down might be to check the control box for
> a hp rating label. It's often on the underside.
> > and rated at either 11
> >or 11.5 amps. I had to know that in order to buy an adequate generator
to
> >run it. My well is rated at 20 gpm but I think it was actually flow at
many
> >times that rate when it was first drilled. So, being a really good well
> >company and all they chose a pump for me that would produce slightly less
> >than what my well can produce at the height I told them I wanted to pump
to.
> >I'd say they did a great job.
> According to the Berkeley curves I have at hand (most submersibles are
> similar), a 1.5hp-20gpm tops out at about 325', and delivers about
> 5gpm at that depth. A 2hp-15 would deliver about 5gpm at 475', tops
> out at 500' and 3gpm. Both would wrong for your setup, which has a max
> design head of 580'. Check some specs for yourself here
> http://tinyurl.com/2jsxe5 and you'll see why I'm skeptical about 2hp
> and 17gpm at 465'. New pumps usually outperform their curves, and
> considering that, your performance is on a 3hp-15 curve. I'm
> definitely curious now, please email the exact make and model when you
> get a chance.
My wife said she may have that info at our store and she'll check tomorrow.
I'm pretty darn sure it's 2 HP. I doubt my 9 HP 4200 watt generator would
even handle a 3 HP pump. But we'll see... maybe I have a magic pump. I
built a RAM pump that I had in my creek here before I got my well drilled
and it's hard to believe (for me anyway) that *it* worked. Things like that
give me ideas...
> For a conventional submersible on generator power (shortest reasonable
> run times on smallish generator), and for normal water consumption, I
> might have chosen a 1.5hp-10, which would deliver about 9gpm at 450'
> (close enough to your normal operation depth), and still 5gpm worst
> case. At 200 gallons per day, the generator could be run about 2.5
> hours per week. Folks needing more water, and/or willing to run a
> larger generator, sometimes go up a notch or two in pump power to keep
> run times down. But the bigger the pump the less likely that inverter
> operation will be practical. For inverter only (or occasional
> generator), a 1hp-5 would have worked. For solar direct or
> solar-battery (or even occasionally EU2000), the Grundfos 3SQF-2 would
> have been cool. You're pretty much at its max depth, but it could
> likely make 500 gallons per day on minimal power and smallest wire and
> pipe.
I'm a little doubtful about the inverter setup being the best solution but
I'm willing to make a few sacrifices if it means using a generator less.
I've been living with them (and for them) for nearly six years and I'm kinda
sick of them. Right now I have a dead Coleman, a Homelite/Tecumseh waiting
for head repair, a Honda waiting for a new governor gear, two eu2000s that
need new engines but there aren't any. The only ones that work right now
are the cheap Chinese things from the auto parts store. Matter-of-fact in
some ways I like the 2000 watt cheapo better than the eu2000. If they keep
selling them for $200 then I don't have too much to worry about. Only time
will tell how long it will last but looking at the diagrams it sure is built
exactly like a Honda GX engine. I've not had the pleasure of taking one
apart yet so the quality of the engine parts is still a mystery. But it
burns no oil and the oil looks good after 50 hours.
> >At approximately 480' (at the top of the tank) I measured the flow rate
by
> >filling a 5 gallon bucket. It took about 17 seconds. That would be 15
> >gallons in 51 seconds. 9 more seconds would give us about 2 1/2 more
> >gallons but I erred on the conservative side. I forget now how long it
took
> >to fill my two 5000 gallons tanks but it was actually a little less time
> >than I figured at 17 gpm so it's probably closer to 18 gpm. I figured
9.8
> >hours and I think it was less than 8. Anyway, I figure that with another
68'
> >(now I'm going from the top of the tank, not ground level) I'll probably
get
> >15 gpm, more or less as my new little tank is not going quite all the way
to
> >the highest point--maybe 8-10 feet lower.
> >
> >I am using 1 1/4" PVC SCH 40 pipe and the run up to the tanks is
somewhere
> >around 630' (I think--this is based upon all the bitching the contractor
did
> >about the 500' of #4 wire so I know how long that run is ;-)
> That's fairly steep. We needed about 800' of pipe to get our tank 100'
> above the house.
When walking up my hill you are very aware that you are walking uphill so I
guess it is fairly steep. Are you also using 1 1/4" for the run down from
the tank? I'm getting 21 psi with my 55 gallon barrel on the hill with
1/2" poly tubing and it's enough to take a decent shower and activate the
valve on the washing machine which supposedly needs 22 psi just to open.
I'm expecting that using 1 1/4" pipe along with more height is going to be a
really big difference for me.
> >another 80 feet to the well from the pedestal and then about another 50
feet
> >from the electric panel on the house to the tanks). I'm gonna measure
the
> >remaining run tomorrow cause I ran out of pipe and I need to get some
> >conduit so I can put my float switch in the new tank. Just guessing it's
> >gonna be about another 150' of run, not head.
> >
> >When you said to count only the "depth to the water" do you mean how far
the
> >water is below ground level or at what depth the pump is placed? The
water
> >is down around 15' or so right now, just guessing of course. I don't see
> >how the water level factors in here if the pump still has to pump 120'
just
> >go get to ground level. I sure hope there's not another one of those
"power
> >factors" that I'm gonna have to learn about ;-)
> The pump does nearly zero work to move water from the pump depth to
> the static level. So you compute performance using the static level
> unless you have reason to believe that it will drop during pumping. To
> spec the pump size, one usually uses the pump depth (which is
> generally near the bottom of the hole), since during a drought, and/or
> if the pumping rate exceeds the recovery rate, the water level could
> be as low as the pump.
I've never watched to see if the water level drops when the pump is on. I
wondered about it but it didn't seem to be an issue unless I try using a
surface pump or something like that. I suspect my well is underrated at 20
gpm. Some of my neighbors claim 80 gpm or more. Not bad for being in the
desert.
> Wayne
Posted by wmbjk on March 27, 2007, 10:54 am
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:34:54 -0800, "Ulysses"
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:35:48 -0800, "Ulysses"
>>
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:29:03 -0800, "Ulysses"
>> >> Something doesn't sound right. Even a 3hp should be more like 13 gpm
>> >> at 500'. Are you sure about your elevation measurements? You should
>> >> only count the depth to the water, plus the extra height to the tank.
>> >> That would make it 455' plus friction loss if I understand your setup
>> >> correctly. What kind of layout is your property that the storage tank
>> >> is 440' above the well? How long is the pipe run between the well and
>> >> the tank, and what size is the pipe?
>> >>
>> >> Wayne
>> >>
>> >
>> >Lemmesee.... my pump is installed at 120' and my well pipe is about 3'
>above
>> >ground level and my well is located about 5' higher than the lowest point
>on
>> >my property. The difference between the highest and lowest points is
>440'.
>> >My house is approximately 80' below the highest point (it's very hilly
>> >here--gentle slope). So that would be 112' (120'-8') + 440 = 552'. If
>we
>> >subtract where the house is that's 472'.
>I'm a little doubtful about the inverter setup being the best solution but
>I'm willing to make a few sacrifices if it means using a generator less.
>I've been living with them (and for them) for nearly six years and I'm kinda
>sick of them. Right now I have a dead Coleman, a Homelite/Tecumseh waiting
>for head repair, a Honda waiting for a new governor gear, two eu2000s that
>need new engines but there aren't any. The only ones that work right now
>are the cheap Chinese things from the auto parts store. Matter-of-fact in
>some ways I like the 2000 watt cheapo better than the eu2000. If they keep
>selling them for $200 then I don't have too much to worry about. Only time
>will tell how long it will last but looking at the diagrams it sure is built
>exactly like a Honda GX engine. I've not had the pleasure of taking one
>apart yet so the quality of the engine parts is still a mystery. But it
>burns no oil and the oil looks good after 50 hours.
If it were me I'd power the pump off the inverter if reasonably
possible. But if that proves too expensive, then using a generator for
90 minutes a week (200+ gallons per day) is certainly practical. We
use a DC backup generator. Everything runs off the inverters, but if
necessary, the generator can fully or partially power loads without
the inverter needing to switch the generator feed in and out.
>> >I am using 1 1/4" PVC SCH 40 pipe and the run up to the tanks is
>somewhere
>> >around 630' (I think--this is based upon all the bitching the contractor
>did
>> >about the 500' of #4 wire so I know how long that run is ;-)
>>
>> That's fairly steep. We needed about 800' of pipe to get our tank 100'
>> above the house.
>When walking up my hill you are very aware that you are walking uphill so I
>guess it is fairly steep.
If you're going up 8 inches for every foot you walk, then that's way
beyond "gently rolling", and there certainly couldn't be any hill
"awareness" issues. ;-)
Let's compare.... the walk up to our tank is 800', during which you
climb 100'. That's a 12.5% slope, about 7 degrees. Walking it will get
most people puffing in a fairly short distance, and there's no doubt
it's a hill. From a standing start, a car coasting down that slope
will hit perhaps 50 mph in 1500'. On highways, lesser grades of
extended distance are often accompanied by runaway-truck ramps. From
what you've written, your hill (in round numbers) is a 600' walk, and
one climbs 400'. That would be more like 67% and 34 degrees. Some
backhoe operators get pretty nervous about working on such slopes -
for good reason. Here's a case study of fatality involving a 24 degree
slope http://shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&idÍ1000102& , and
here's an illustration of backhoe cg on a 20% slope
http://www.buyerzone.com/industrial/backhoe/rbic-backhoe-loader-tools.html .
Unless your hill is more than three times as steep as that
illustration, then your elevation numbers are at the root of the
mysterious pump performance.
> Are you also using 1 1/4" for the run down from
>the tank?
Yes.
> I'm getting 21 psi with my 55 gallon barrel on the hill
That's a rise of about 48'.
> with
>1/2" poly tubing and it's enough to take a decent shower and activate the
>valve on the washing machine which supposedly needs 22 psi just to open.
>I'm expecting that using 1 1/4" pipe along with more height is going to be a
>really big difference for me.
Maximum design flow for a water-conscious home might be 10gpm. If the
run from the tank to the house is say, 200', then using 1" pipe would
result in friction loss of about 5psi
http://homepower.com/files/pipe.pdf . Using 1.25" would reduce the loss
to about 1.5psi. The pipe from the well to the tank (could be the same
pipe for part of the run) is a separate issue, but there again 1.25
should be a reasonable choice.
>I've never watched to see if the water level drops when the pump is on. I
>wondered about it but it didn't seem to be an issue unless I try using a
>surface pump or something like that. I suspect my well is underrated at 20
>gpm. Some of my neighbors claim 80 gpm or more. Not bad for being in the
>desert.
It's excellent. Although even a half a gallon a minute is 720 gallons
per day, many times what most water-conscious folks would use, and
generally several times more than what most solar folks are willing to
pump with expensive solar power. I've seen a few 1/4gpm wells that the
owners were happy with, and the record that I've seen personally was a
60 gallon *per day* well that cost about $25k. The production was
about what the owner had been hauling, and he was real happy that he
didn't need to do that anymore.
Wayne
Posted by Ulysses on March 30, 2007, 12:07 pm
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:34:54 -0800, "Ulysses"
> >
> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:35:48 -0800, "Ulysses"
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:29:03 -0800, "Ulysses"
> >> >> Something doesn't sound right. Even a 3hp should be more like 13 gpm
> >> >> at 500'. Are you sure about your elevation measurements? You should
> >> >> only count the depth to the water, plus the extra height to the
tank.
> >> >> That would make it 455' plus friction loss if I understand your
setup
> >> >> correctly. What kind of layout is your property that the storage
tank
> >> >> is 440' above the well? How long is the pipe run between the well
and
> >> >> the tank, and what size is the pipe?
> >> >>
> >> >> Wayne
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Lemmesee.... my pump is installed at 120' and my well pipe is about 3'
> >above
> >> >ground level and my well is located about 5' higher than the lowest
point
> >on
> >> >my property. The difference between the highest and lowest points is
> >440'.
> >> >My house is approximately 80' below the highest point (it's very hilly
> >> >here--gentle slope). So that would be 112' (120'-8') + 440 = 552'.
If
> >we
> >> >subtract where the house is that's 472'.
> >I'm a little doubtful about the inverter setup being the best solution
but
> >I'm willing to make a few sacrifices if it means using a generator less.
> >I've been living with them (and for them) for nearly six years and I'm
kinda
> >sick of them. Right now I have a dead Coleman, a Homelite/Tecumseh
waiting
> >for head repair, a Honda waiting for a new governor gear, two eu2000s
that
> >need new engines but there aren't any. The only ones that work right now
> >are the cheap Chinese things from the auto parts store. Matter-of-fact
in
> >some ways I like the 2000 watt cheapo better than the eu2000. If they
keep
> >selling them for $200 then I don't have too much to worry about. Only
time
> >will tell how long it will last but looking at the diagrams it sure is
built
> >exactly like a Honda GX engine. I've not had the pleasure of taking one
> >apart yet so the quality of the engine parts is still a mystery. But it
> >burns no oil and the oil looks good after 50 hours.
> If it were me I'd power the pump off the inverter if reasonably
> possible. But if that proves too expensive, then using a generator for
> 90 minutes a week (200+ gallons per day) is certainly practical. We
> use a DC backup generator. Everything runs off the inverters, but if
> necessary, the generator can fully or partially power loads without
> the inverter needing to switch the generator feed in and out.
I didn't find the pump info yet. Still looking.
> >> >I am using 1 1/4" PVC SCH 40 pipe and the run up to the tanks is
> >somewhere
> >> >around 630' (I think--this is based upon all the bitching the
contractor
> >did
> >> >about the 500' of #4 wire so I know how long that run is ;-)
> >>
> >> That's fairly steep. We needed about 800' of pipe to get our tank 100'
> >> above the house.
> >
> >When walking up my hill you are very aware that you are walking uphill so
I
> >guess it is fairly steep.
> If you're going up 8 inches for every foot you walk, then that's way
> beyond "gently rolling", and there certainly couldn't be any hill
> "awareness" issues. ;-)
> Let's compare.... the walk up to our tank is 800', during which you
> climb 100'. That's a 12.5% slope, about 7 degrees. Walking it will get
> most people puffing in a fairly short distance, and there's no doubt
> it's a hill. From a standing start, a car coasting down that slope
> will hit perhaps 50 mph in 1500'. On highways, lesser grades of
> extended distance are often accompanied by runaway-truck ramps. From
> what you've written, your hill (in round numbers) is a 600' walk, and
> one climbs 400'. That would be more like 67% and 34 degrees. Some
> backhoe operators get pretty nervous about working on such slopes -
> for good reason. Here's a case study of fatality involving a 24 degree
> slope http://shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&idÍ1000102& , and
> here's an illustration of backhoe cg on a 20% slope
http://www.buyerzone.com/industrial/backhoe/rbic-backhoe-loader-tools.html .
> Unless your hill is more than three times as steep as that
> illustration, then your elevation numbers are at the root of the
> mysterious pump performance.
Um, my slope is much steeper than the one illustrated on that site. I
remember at one point, when I was calculating how much dirt I would have to
move to make a flat spot for a house, the rise was about 5 or 6 feet going
up the hill about 28 feet.
> > Are you also using 1 1/4" for the run down from
> >the tank?
> Yes.
> > I'm getting 21 psi with my 55 gallon barrel on the hill
> That's a rise of about 48'.
> > with
> >1/2" poly tubing and it's enough to take a decent shower and activate the
> >valve on the washing machine which supposedly needs 22 psi just to open.
> >I'm expecting that using 1 1/4" pipe along with more height is going to
be a
> >really big difference for me.
> Maximum design flow for a water-conscious home might be 10gpm. If the
> run from the tank to the house is say, 200', then using 1" pipe would
> result in friction loss of about 5psi
> http://homepower.com/files/pipe.pdf . Using 1.25" would reduce the loss
> to about 1.5psi. The pipe from the well to the tank (could be the same
> pipe for part of the run) is a separate issue, but there again 1.25
> should be a reasonable choice.
> >I've never watched to see if the water level drops when the pump is on.
I
> >wondered about it but it didn't seem to be an issue unless I try using a
> >surface pump or something like that. I suspect my well is underrated at
20
> >gpm. Some of my neighbors claim 80 gpm or more. Not bad for being in
the
> >desert.
> It's excellent. Although even a half a gallon a minute is 720 gallons
> per day, many times what most water-conscious folks would use, and
> generally several times more than what most solar folks are willing to
> pump with expensive solar power. I've seen a few 1/4gpm wells that the
> owners were happy with, and the record that I've seen personally was a
> 60 gallon *per day* well that cost about $25k. The production was
> about what the owner had been hauling, and he was real happy that he
> didn't need to do that anymore.
> Wayne
Posted by Ulysses on March 22, 2007, 9:46 pm
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:21:12 -0800, "Ulysses"
> >Anyone using an autotransformer with a single inverter to run a 240 VAC
well
> >pump?
> Yes, but I had the luxury of choosing my pump after knowing the
> capability of my solar system. I have a Grundfos SQE pump, which is
> electronically controlled from above ground. I can set the
> speed/output/current draw to match my available power - maximum when
> the genset is running, or lower to stay within my solar budget. It
> also has "soft start", so there is no surge and the current ramps up
> gradually over ten seconds.
First I was going to go solar, then Edison said it would only be $8000 to
get hooked up to the grid, then it was $23,000, then they couldn't figure
out how to get it to me.... meanwhile I got the well pump expecting to be on
the grid.
> The SQEs are 3" diameter with 1" output pipe, and can sometimes be
> dropped down beside your existing pump. One person can actually pull
> an SQE from 180' by hand. If there is any chance you could fit one in
> your well, I'd recommend adding one, rather than struggling to run a
> 2HP behemoth on solar.
I've searched all over the internet many times over for a pump that would
fit in next to the one I have and found nothing. It looks like I could get
2" or maybe even 2 1/2" between the well and the pump pipe but I think
that's about it. It's a really good quality pump so I'm trying to utilize
it if possible.
> The only reason mine is 240V is the distance I had to run from the
> power source. The transformer was far cheaper than the cost of the
> larger wire to run a 120V pump.
> ...
> > My well pump runs fine from a 4200/5000 peak
> >generator but the autotransformers I've seen (Xantrex and Outback) only
go
> >up to 4000 VA. Well, I've tried to understand the difference between VA
and
> >watts but it's not sinking in. My well pump is rated at 2 HP and about
11
> >amps while running.
> The critical value is the NEMA code of your pump motor - see Chart A
> at:
> <http://www.gillettegenerators.com/sizing/sizing03.html>
> My 1HP table saw, for instance, has a 'K' motor, and starts fine on my
> SW4024 or 5KW Onan. A friend's 1HP saw has an 'M' motor that kills
> either dead instantly. Same power when running, but the starting surge
> on the higher letters goes way up.
> As for VA vs watts, search for "power factor". Another advantage of
> the SQE's electronics - it is power factor corrected so the VA is the
> same as the watt draw.
> Loren
Posted by Neon John on March 22, 2007, 3:32 pm
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:21:12 -0800, "Ulysses"
>Anyone using an autotransformer with a single inverter to run a 240 VAC well
>pump? I'm trying to put together a solar system on a limited budget and my
>main goals are to run my well pump for about 15-20 minutes a day and my
>refrigerator plus a few minor loads such as a few CF lights, alarm clocks,
>AA battery charger, and DVD recorder/satellite receiver. I figure I need
>about 5 kWh/day minimum. My well pump runs fine from a 4200/5000 peak
>generator but the autotransformers I've seen (Xantrex and Outback) only go
>up to 4000 VA. Well, I've tried to understand the difference between VA and
>watts but it's not sinking in.
Any device such as a motor that contains a coil (or a capacitor) draws
its peak current at a different time than the voltage peaks on each
half of the 60 cycle wave. In fact, a pure inductor draws peak
current when the voltage is zero (90 degrees out of phase). A pure
inductor draws volt-amps but no watts.
Because of this phase lag, the true power consumed is less than the
apparent power which is simply volts times amps or VA. True power =
volts * amps * cos(theta) where theta is the phase angle between volts
and amps. Or more commonly expressed, true power = volts * amps * PF
where PF - power factor - is a number between 0 and 1. If you have a
Kill-A-Watt, for example, it will display PF directly.
VA or KVA (kilo-volt-amps) is a convenient way to express the capacity
of devices that have to handle reactive current (that is, current in
excess of the real power) Unless the load is purely resistive (PF=1)
then the VA (volts * amps) is greater than the true power because PF
is always less than 1.
>My well pump is rated at 2 HP and about 11
>amps while running.
So your pump's VA rating is 240 * 11 = 2640 VA. That's well within
the rating of that 4000 VA auto-transformer. Transformers can handle
huge overloads for short period of time, a characteristic of their
construction. Whatever surge your pump draws will be no problem.
>I don't know the surge rating other than what my
>generator is rated at. Xantrex is selling their T-240 autotransformer for
>the purpose of running "deep well pumps" so that leaves me wondering if it
>will work or not. One SW5548 should easily be able to start and run my well
>pump but will the autotransformer be able to keep up? I only need about 2
>seconds or so of additional surge power and then it should be using about
>2600 watts while running.
Your pump won't draw that much power. If the pump has a PF of 0.9
(typically of a fully loaded small motor) then the true power draw in
watts will be 2640 VA * 0.9 = 2376 watts. If the motor is less than
fully loaded then the PF goes down. What you'll see at the terminals
is that the power consumption will go down with decreasing load while
the amps stay about the same. The VA rating is the WORST case that
your generator or inverter will have to supply, ignoring inrush, of
course.
>I'm planning on getting about 2000 watts of PV panels to start out and 24 X
>220 Ah 6 volt batteries. If one inverter will do the trick I'll have to go
>with a 48 volt system but if I need to get two smaller inverters then 24
>volts might be a consideration.
Do you have any other load that justifies that large a system? If not
then IMO, you're going to great expense just to run that pump from
solar. Why not just run it from the generator and do everything else
solar? If you really do only need to run it for 15 minutes a day then
the cost of the generator will be minimal while the cost of the solar
system will be huge for that sort period of operation.
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
All great things are simple and many can be expressed in single words:
Freedom, Justice, Honor, Duty, Mercy, Hope. -Churchill
> >
> >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:29:03 -0800, "Ulysses"
> >>
> >>
> >> >As for the 8gpm at 500' of head I'm pumping to about that height now
and
> >> >I've measured it at 17 gpm. I must have a really good pump. I'll
have
> >to
> >> >go look for the info on it and see what brank it is. It was not
cheap.
> >>
> >> Something doesn't sound right. Even a 3hp should be more like 13 gpm
> >> at 500'. Are you sure about your elevation measurements? You should
> >> only count the depth to the water, plus the extra height to the tank.
> >> That would make it 455' plus friction loss if I understand your setup
> >> correctly. What kind of layout is your property that the storage tank
> >> is 440' above the well? How long is the pipe run between the well and
> >> the tank, and what size is the pipe?
> >>
> >> Wayne
> >>
> >
> >Lemmesee.... my pump is installed at 120' and my well pipe is about 3'
above
> >ground level and my well is located about 5' higher than the lowest point
on
> >my property. The difference between the highest and lowest points is
440'.
> >My house is approximately 80' below the highest point (it's very hilly
> >here--gentle slope). So that would be 112' (120'-8') + 440 = 552'. If
we
> >subtract where the house is that's 472'. When I stated the head heights
I
> >was not trying to be exact but only general. At one point I think I said
it
> >was over 600' but I attribute that to my brain being tired from trying to
> >absorb too many VAs and such.
> Then pumping head (static water level -> top of tank) is about 455',
> and max is 560 if the well draws down. Add about another 20' for the
> friction loss of 600' of 1.25" PVC. (depends on flow rate
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pvc-pipes-friction-loss-d_802.html )
> >I'm not absolutely certain about the height to the house but it's