Alternative Power sources - strategy for saving power on pool pump use

Author

strategy for saving power on pool pump use

Kim

2007-04-04, 1:25 pm

perhaps the distinguished readers here might share a similar situation or
have ideas to share.

have tried to figure out a way to save on electric bill but not lose my nice
swimming pool (diamondbrite), thus came upon the idea that perhaps it's ok
to run the pool pump only every other day when temps are in the high 80's
and only twice a week when temps are below 80's

have tested this out now for a couple months, with weekly chemical level
tests as well as 2nd party independent validation to the local supply house
where I also take a water sample

I also installed a new 1hp energy efficient pump but hey, it's still sucking
a mighty 750-850 watts when running and that is almost as much as the
smaller of two compressors on my dual compressor heat pump (heat pump for
cooling house, not for heating pool water as the water is always
sufficiently warm)

besides running that 750-850w for a continuous 6hrs at a time, is this sound
thinking or am I on the way to destroy my pool surface with this method? in
case it matters, I keep the filter clean and pool is screened so there is
virtually zero debris daily

somebody@somewhere.com

2007-04-04, 5:25 pm

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:12:48 +0300, "Kim" <kim@fluxcapacitor.com>
wrote:

>perhaps the distinguished readers here might share a similar situation or
>have ideas to share.
>
>have tried to figure out a way to save on electric bill but not lose my nice
>swimming pool (diamondbrite), thus came upon the idea that perhaps it's ok
>to run the pool pump only every other day when temps are in the high 80's
>and only twice a week when temps are below 80's
>
>have tested this out now for a couple months, with weekly chemical level
>tests as well as 2nd party independent validation to the local supply house
>where I also take a water sample
>
>I also installed a new 1hp energy efficient pump but hey, it's still sucking
>a mighty 750-850 watts when running and that is almost as much as the
>smaller of two compressors on my dual compressor heat pump (heat pump for
>cooling house, not for heating pool water as the water is always
>sufficiently warm)
>
>besides running that 750-850w for a continuous 6hrs at a time, is this sound
>thinking or am I on the way to destroy my pool surface with this method? in
>case it matters, I keep the filter clean and pool is screened so there is
>virtually zero debris daily

Fill in the pool with dirt. You'll save about $600 or more a year,
between chemicals, electricity, insurance, and other factors, and you
can excavate it just before you sell.

If you want to save electricity, buy an "Aqua Jet". About 100 watts
and the filtering is done in the bag.

IMO, pool pumps are one of the most inefficient and ineffective
methods of cleaning possible. Take in water, clean it, mix it back
into the dirty water, repeat. An efficient system would have the
pool, a pump and filter, and a second empty pool or bladder. The pump
would move the dirty water to the clean bladder until the pool was
empty, then any debris cleaned out, then the water replaced. That
ain't goinna happen. In a rectangular pool, a moveable wier or
barrier could do something similar. Put the barrier at the far end of
the pool Pump water from near side of the pool past the barrier to the
far side, and let the barrier move from the far end to the near end.
That ain't goinna happen either.

The Aqua Jet does about the best possible compromise, it gets close to
the floor of the pool (the dirtiest part if you use flocculants) and
scoops that water and dirt into the filter bag. An hour of cleaning
like that can be more effective than five hours of running the big
pump.

Don't think you'll save much money though, these toys are expensive,
costing $700+ for one capable of cleaning an in-ground pool. They
also do wear out over time, although they are better built than most
of the competition.

Solar Flare

2007-04-04, 8:25 pm

This would apply to forced air furnaces also. The idea is to take it
from the worst part and put it back in the best part of the pool.

In Ontario you would have to fill in the pool with dirt to sell your
house to somebody that will install their own pool. Stupid but it
devalues your house.

BTW: Most pool owners here admit to nothing over $1600-$1900 per year.
These are the pool defenders. We have aprox. 3-4 months of pool
weather if you heat it.

Some have put timers on their pool pumps to reduce their bills. PV
panels with thermal coolers come to mind come to mind here.

<somebody@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:kcr713l63us4k2a7v9sj7c9atq050emppt@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:12:48 +0300, "Kim" <kim@fluxcapacitor.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Fill in the pool with dirt. You'll save about $600 or more a year,
> between chemicals, electricity, insurance, and other factors, and
> you
> can excavate it just before you sell.
>
> If you want to save electricity, buy an "Aqua Jet". About 100 watts
> and the filtering is done in the bag.
>
> IMO, pool pumps are one of the most inefficient and ineffective
> methods of cleaning possible. Take in water, clean it, mix it back
> into the dirty water, repeat. An efficient system would have the
> pool, a pump and filter, and a second empty pool or bladder. The
> pump
> would move the dirty water to the clean bladder until the pool was
> empty, then any debris cleaned out, then the water replaced. That
> ain't goinna happen. In a rectangular pool, a moveable wier or
> barrier could do something similar. Put the barrier at the far end
> of
> the pool Pump water from near side of the pool past the barrier to
> the
> far side, and let the barrier move from the far end to the near end.
> That ain't goinna happen either.
>
> The Aqua Jet does about the best possible compromise, it gets close
> to
> the floor of the pool (the dirtiest part if you use flocculants) and
> scoops that water and dirt into the filter bag. An hour of cleaning
> like that can be more effective than five hours of running the big
> pump.
>
> Don't think you'll save much money though, these toys are expensive,
> costing $700+ for one capable of cleaning an in-ground pool. They
> also do wear out over time, although they are better built than most
> of the competition.

Ulysses

2007-04-06, 1:25 pm

<somebody@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:kcr713l63us4k2a7v9sj7c9atq050emppt@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:12:48 +0300, "Kim" <kim@fluxcapacitor.com>
> wrote:
>
nice[color=darkred]
ok[color=darkred]
house[color=darkred]
sucking[color=darkred]
sound[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
>
> Fill in the pool with dirt. You'll save about $600 or more a year,
> between chemicals, electricity, insurance, and other factors, and you
> can excavate it just before you sell.
>
> If you want to save electricity, buy an "Aqua Jet". About 100 watts
> and the filtering is done in the bag.
>
> IMO, pool pumps are one of the most inefficient and ineffective
> methods of cleaning possible. Take in water, clean it, mix it back
> into the dirty water, repeat. An efficient system would have the
> pool, a pump and filter, and a second empty pool or bladder. The pump
> would move the dirty water to the clean bladder until the pool was
> empty, then any debris cleaned out, then the water replaced. That
> ain't goinna happen. In a rectangular pool, a moveable wier or
> barrier could do something similar. Put the barrier at the far end of
> the pool Pump water from near side of the pool past the barrier to the
> far side, and let the barrier move from the far end to the near end.
> That ain't goinna happen either.
>
> The Aqua Jet does about the best possible compromise, it gets close to
> the floor of the pool (the dirtiest part if you use flocculants) and
> scoops that water and dirt into the filter bag. An hour of cleaning
> like that can be more effective than five hours of running the big
> pump.
>
> Don't think you'll save much money though, these toys are expensive,
> costing $700+ for one capable of cleaning an in-ground pool. They
> also do wear out over time, although they are better built than most
> of the competition.

I'm not sure what an "Aqua Jet" is but in my experience having an automatic
pool vac (I had a Barracuda) significantly reduced the time I needed to run
the filter/pump. Don't ever let your chemical levels drop below acceptable.
Keep your DE filter clean.

I made an ozone generator when I had a 24 foot round above ground pool and
it reduced my chlorine and acid consumption by about 30% each. It also
reduced the time I needed to run the filter/pump by about 1/3. The water
was much clearer with the ozone. I didn't ever try it with my built-in
pool. My ozone generator only used about 14 watts.

Epictitus

2007-04-07, 9:25 am

care to share any links? I'd like to check out how you built it.

"Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:131cphjtjn5asb0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <somebody@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:kcr713l63us4k2a7v9sj7c9atq050emppt@4ax.com...
> nice
> ok
> house
> sucking
> sound
> in
>
> I'm not sure what an "Aqua Jet" is but in my experience having an
> automatic
> pool vac (I had a Barracuda) significantly reduced the time I needed to
> run
> the filter/pump. Don't ever let your chemical levels drop below
> acceptable.
> Keep your DE filter clean.
>
> I made an ozone generator when I had a 24 foot round above ground pool and
> it reduced my chlorine and acid consumption by about 30% each. It also
> reduced the time I needed to run the filter/pump by about 1/3. The water
> was much clearer with the ozone. I didn't ever try it with my built-in
> pool. My ozone generator only used about 14 watts.
>
>

Ulysses

2007-04-07, 1:25 pm

"Epictitus" <mikeNOSPAMster.d2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2eSdnWhewJQkGYrbnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@giganews.com...
> care to share any links? I'd like to check out how you built it.

I don't have a web site for it. Basically it was made from an ignition coil
for a car to produce an arc that produced ozone. I made a power supply
using a transformer to supply the 12 volts for the coil and a pulse circuit
built on a 555 timer to pulse the DC. The components were housed in such a
way that the air would flow through the housing and past the arc via a
venturi connected to the pump outlet.

Unfortunately I came up with what may be a new component that may be
patentable so I'm not quite ready to share that yet. If I ever manage to do
a patent search and either apply for a patent or not then I'll be happy to
share it with those who just want to build one for themselves.

>
>
> "Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:131cphjtjn5asb0@corp.supernews.com...
my[color=darkred]
it's[color=darkred]
level[color=darkred]
method?[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
water[color=darkred]
>
>

Neon John

2007-04-07, 1:25 pm

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:06:35 -0700, "Ulysses"
<therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Epictitus" <mikeNOSPAMster.d2@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2eSdnWhewJQkGYrbnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>I don't have a web site for it. Basically it was made from an ignition coil
>for a car to produce an arc that produced ozone. I made a power supply
>using a transformer to supply the 12 volts for the coil and a pulse circuit
>built on a 555 timer to pulse the DC. The components were housed in such a
>way that the air would flow through the housing and past the arc via a
>venturi connected to the pump outlet.
>
>Unfortunately I came up with what may be a new component that may be
>patentable so I'm not quite ready to share that yet. If I ever manage to do
>a patent search and either apply for a patent or not then I'll be happy to
>share it with those who just want to build one for themselves.

An arc is a poor ozone generator. The most efficient electrical
method is corona discharge. The other method is short wave UV.

Most commercial ozone generators for air employ a variation of a high
potential difference across a glass insulator. One electrode inside a
glass tube or bottle and one on the outside. Here's a friend of
mine's site showing how to build two different types of corona
discharge generators:

http://www.emanator.demon.co.uk/bigclive/ozone.htm

For a pool, air could be pulled through such a device and
bubbled/sucked into the water. Ozone is much more soluble in water
than oxygen so it dissolves readily.

For water, the most usual method for ozone generation is a short wave
mercury UV lamp. This type of lamp has a quartz envelope that passes
the 253nm emission line of mercury. Longer wavelengths don't work.
Many UV lamps are designed to pass only longer wave lines and thus
won't make ozone. That's why Clive's mercury vapor arc tube didn't do
particularly well. The quartz formulation passes little short wave
UV, a safety measure in case the outer globe is broken.

I have an approx 4 ft long quartz envelope cold cathode UV lamp that
came out of a water sterilizer. It's worn out and its emission is
down enough that it no longer was adequate for sterilizing water but
it still makes enough ozone that when fired off, the air gets choking
with ozone in short order.

Though not nearly as intense, a germicidal lamp is another good ozone
generator, though some mfrs have been playing around with the glass
formulation to trim the shortest waves and cut down on airborne ozone.
These are the blue lights you see in barber shops. A source:

http://www.buylighting.com/Germicidal-s/126.htm

These are pretty reasonable prices as germicidal lamps go. Your local
barber and beauty supply probably also stocks them (the "Sally's"
chain does in this area) but they'll want more than $30 for a 2 ft
bulb. One trick I've learned is that at the expense of bulb life, one
can run a shorter bulb on a longer bulb ballast, say, a 24" bulb on a
48" ballast and get more UV production.

Making ozone in water with one of these can be as simple as soldering
wires to the pins, potting each end in RTV or epoxy and dropping the
weghted lamp into the water. In a return well if you fear the lamp
getting broken in the pool. Don't let any of the bulb be above water,
as the intense UV will turn white PVC yellow and brittle literally
overnight.

John
---
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

Ulysses

2007-04-07, 8:25 pm

"Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
news:3olf13pkjh5jht9i4e6sbchj8vhh0tjouj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:06:35 -0700, "Ulysses"
> <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
coil[color=darkred]
circuit[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
do[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
> An arc is a poor ozone generator. The most efficient electrical
> method is corona discharge. The other method is short wave UV.
>
> Most commercial ozone generators for air employ a variation of a high
> potential difference across a glass insulator. One electrode inside a
> glass tube or bottle and one on the outside. Here's a friend of
> mine's site showing how to build two different types of corona
> discharge generators:
>
> http://www.emanator.demon.co.uk/bigclive/ozone.htm

Well, OK then. That saves me a lot of time and trouble.

I made what I call a "corona coil" which works basically the same as on that
web site. I used a steel 3/8" rod insulated with a lab glass tube. This
was suspended inside a second steel tube using small diameter plastic tubing
(little red tubes from WD-40, carb cleaner etc). High voltage was applied
to the rod and tube. The insulation prevents a direct arc but allows
leakage creating a "corona" inside the air space. The air is pulled through
the "corona coil" via a venturi connected to the pool pump outlet. This can
be placed conveniently by adding a section of pipe that is slightly smaller
in diameter than any other pipe in the outlet plumbing. The venturi will
not work if the pipe it is installed in is the same size or bigger than the
other pipes (at least not for me).

If the ozonizer is carefully designed the air being pulled through the
corona coil via the venturi can flow past the electronics and provide the
necessary cooling so an additional cooling fan should not be required.

I think this method is superior to using UV lights as the power consumption
is lower and it is more reliable.

>
> For a pool, air could be pulled through such a device and
> bubbled/sucked into the water. Ozone is much more soluble in water
> than oxygen so it dissolves readily.
>
> For water, the most usual method for ozone generation is a short wave
> mercury UV lamp. This type of lamp has a quartz envelope that passes
> the 253nm emission line of mercury. Longer wavelengths don't work.
> Many UV lamps are designed to pass only longer wave lines and thus
> won't make ozone. That's why Clive's mercury vapor arc tube didn't do
> particularly well. The quartz formulation passes little short wave
> UV, a safety measure in case the outer globe is broken.
>
> I have an approx 4 ft long quartz envelope cold cathode UV lamp that
> came out of a water sterilizer. It's worn out and its emission is
> down enough that it no longer was adequate for sterilizing water but
> it still makes enough ozone that when fired off, the air gets choking
> with ozone in short order.
>
> Though not nearly as intense, a germicidal lamp is another good ozone
> generator, though some mfrs have been playing around with the glass
> formulation to trim the shortest waves and cut down on airborne ozone.
> These are the blue lights you see in barber shops. A source:
>
> http://www.buylighting.com/Germicidal-s/126.htm
>
> These are pretty reasonable prices as germicidal lamps go. Your local
> barber and beauty supply probably also stocks them (the "Sally's"
> chain does in this area) but they'll want more than $30 for a 2 ft
> bulb. One trick I've learned is that at the expense of bulb life, one
> can run a shorter bulb on a longer bulb ballast, say, a 24" bulb on a
> 48" ballast and get more UV production.
>
> Making ozone in water with one of these can be as simple as soldering
> wires to the pins, potting each end in RTV or epoxy and dropping the
> weghted lamp into the water. In a return well if you fear the lamp
> getting broken in the pool. Don't let any of the bulb be above water,
> as the intense UV will turn white PVC yellow and brittle literally
> overnight.
>
> John
> ---
> 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

Ulysses

2007-04-11, 8:25 pm

"Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:131gc6d6v4ro52b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
> news:3olf13pkjh5jht9i4e6sbchj8vhh0tjouj@4ax.com...
> coil
> circuit
such[color=darkred]
> a
to[color=darkred]
> do
> to
>
> Well, OK then. That saves me a lot of time and trouble.
>
> I made what I call a "corona coil" which works basically the same as on
that
> web site. I used a steel 3/8" rod insulated with a lab glass tube. This
> was suspended inside a second steel tube using small diameter plastic
tubing
> (little red tubes from WD-40, carb cleaner etc). High voltage was applied
> to the rod and tube. The insulation prevents a direct arc but allows
> leakage creating a "corona" inside the air space. The air is pulled
through
> the "corona coil" via a venturi connected to the pool pump outlet. This
can
> be placed conveniently by adding a section of pipe that is slightly
smaller
> in diameter than any other pipe in the outlet plumbing. The venturi will
> not work if the pipe it is installed in is the same size or bigger than
the
> other pipes (at least not for me).
>
> If the ozonizer is carefully designed the air being pulled through the
> corona coil via the venturi can flow past the electronics and provide the
> necessary cooling so an additional cooling fan should not be required.
>
> I think this method is superior to using UV lights as the power
consumption
> is lower and it is more reliable.

I forgot to mention that ozone is very hard on rubber and some plastics (as
John mentioned). I seem to recall vinyl tubing held up really well but
polypropylene did not. I have not tried copper and I do not know if there
would be come kind of reaction taking place that might neutralize the ozone
but it would probably hold up well.

Also you might want to look into silver ions: somebody used to make a device
that was solar-powered that floated around in the pool but it was expensive
and our goal here is to reduce swimming pool costs. Maybe they made some
progress since I last looked.

>
>
>

LinkBot