|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > June 2007 > rocking horse pumps
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
rocking horse pumps
|
|
| Neon John 2007-06-24, 1:25 pm |
|
I was sitting here thinking about well pumps and something hit me. Why don't more
people, especially off-grid people, use rocking-horse pumps, the same kind that you
see pumping oil from wells?
These things are incredibly efficient, particularly for very deep wells. The weight
of the pull rod AND the weight of the water are offset by the counterweight on the
rocking horse. All the electric motor has to overcome is a little friction and
whatever pressure is desired at the well head.
I've seen miniature rocking horse beams and gearboxes suitable for water sized wells.
It would seem to me that this would be THE way to go for off-grid. A fractional
horse motor could pump from essentially any depth.
Comments?
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Risk: $20 hooker, year old condom.
| |
| jan siepelstad 2007-06-24, 1:25 pm |
|
"Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
news:f39t73p6i4ghnd41to9d1ujpcpp64hmeks@4ax.com...
>
> I was sitting here thinking about well pumps and something hit me. Why
> don't more
> people, especially off-grid people, use rocking-horse pumps, the same kind
> that you
> see pumping oil from wells?
>
> These things are incredibly efficient, particularly for very deep wells.
> The weight
> of the pull rod AND the weight of the water are offset by the
> counterweight on the
> rocking horse. All the electric motor has to overcome is a little
> friction and
> whatever pressure is desired at the well head.
>
> I've seen miniature rocking horse beams and gearboxes suitable for water
> sized wells.
> It would seem to me that this would be THE way to go for off-grid. A
> fractional
> horse motor could pump from essentially any depth.
>
> Comments?
>
> John
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.neon-john.com
> http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> Risk: $20 hooker, year old condom.
>
You might think the motor only has to supply the power for the pressure at
the wellhead, but that's wrong.
The motor also has to supply the power to lift the water from the depth were
it was!
Offcourse you can make the counterweight in balance withe the watermass, but
then when the counterweight has rotated 180 degrees, you have to lift the
countermass, which needs power too!
Water does not come up by itself!
| |
| Ulysses 2007-06-24, 1:25 pm |
|
"Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
news:f39t73p6i4ghnd41to9d1ujpcpp64hmeks@4ax.com...
>
> I was sitting here thinking about well pumps and something hit me. Why
don't more
> people, especially off-grid people, use rocking-horse pumps, the same kind
that you
> see pumping oil from wells?
>
> These things are incredibly efficient, particularly for very deep wells.
The weight
> of the pull rod AND the weight of the water are offset by the
counterweight on the
> rocking horse. All the electric motor has to overcome is a little
friction and
> whatever pressure is desired at the well head.
>
> I've seen miniature rocking horse beams and gearboxes suitable for water
sized wells.
> It would seem to me that this would be THE way to go for off-grid. A
fractional
> horse motor could pump from essentially any depth.
>
> Comments?
>
> John
I've found only one well pump similar to what you are talking about but it
uses gears instead of a counterweight etc. It has a 12 volt motor that is
somewhere around 8 amps if I recall correctly. The pump moves up and down
and it will run from a couple of solar panels. I am considering making
something of the sort one of these days because the one I saw was all
stainless steel and goes for around $1800. If I could get 2 gpm for 5 hours
a day I probably wouldn't need my 240 VAC well pump. One of the nice
features is that it will fit into the well head alongside the existing pipe
for the other pump. Now I have to go find out how rocking horses work ;-)
This just might make the thing a lot easier to build.
I also sounds like, if necessary, it could be used manually.
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.neon-john.com
> http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> Risk: $20 hooker, year old condom.
>
| |
| wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net 2007-06-24, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:09:54 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>I was sitting here thinking about well pumps and something hit me. Why don't more
>people, especially off-grid people, use rocking-horse pumps, the same kind that you
>see pumping oil from wells?
Generally because they're more expensive and higher maintenance than
other alternatives. For example, solar submersibles can often be hung
on poly pipe and set by hand. Regular cylinder-type pumps need 2 or
2.5" galvanized column pipe plus an equal length of sucker rod. You
can pull fiberglass sucker rod by hand, but steel pipe gets heavy
fast. Try pricing that pipe and see if that doesn't dampen your
enthusiasm. You can price the jack mechanisms here
http://tinyurl.com/24rjuo.
>These things are incredibly efficient, particularly for very deep wells.
They aren't as efficient as these
http://store.solar-electric.com/grsqpu.html for example, which don't
need a sucker rod pulled regularly to change pump leathers. A friend
has a ~150k acre ranch with about 2 dozen wells. They're trying to
upgrade all the cylinder-based (wind and diesel) setups to solar
submersibles as budget allows.
> The weight
>of the pull rod AND the weight of the water are offset by the counterweight on the
>rocking horse.
Not unless the water falls back down on every stroke....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL
> All the electric motor has to overcome is a little friction and
>whatever pressure is desired at the well head.
Do the math for 500' and an 1-7/8" cylinder to see how "little" force
it takes to lift that water.
>I've seen miniature rocking horse beams and gearboxes suitable for water sized wells.
>It would seem to me that this would be THE way to go for off-grid. A fractional
>horse motor could pump from essentially any depth.
A standard 3/4hp submersible can lift to 400'. A good solar
submersible can lift to 500' on about 300W (at a slower flow rate). An
even smaller motor and a gearbox can exert a lot of muscle, but it
will take longer. In an off-grid whole-house situation, by necessity
one often has unused reserve inverter capacity. Using it to shorten
pumping duration can make sense.
>Comments?
It's old technology that can still be a good (or only) choice if water
is too deep for a solar submersible, or if you can scrounge and don't
value your time very highly. I worked on a solar well last week that
was a 3 hour return trip by quad. The former wind pumper is laying in
a crumpled heap along with a bunch of heavily rusted column pipe and
sucker rod. All free for the taking I imagine. Bring your helicopter
or a sturdy mule pack if you want it. Add your own cylinder from here
http://www.deanbennett.com/deepwellcylinders.htm.
Wayne
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-06-24, 5:25 pm |
|
<wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:0fgt73livjq7h0njg7be7n52sjqum75obr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:09:54 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>
> Generally because they're more expensive and higher maintenance than
> other alternatives. For example, solar submersibles can often be hung
> on poly pipe and set by hand. Regular cylinder-type pumps need 2 or
> 2.5" galvanized column pipe plus an equal length of sucker rod. You
> can pull fiberglass sucker rod by hand, but steel pipe gets heavy
> fast. Try pricing that pipe and see if that doesn't dampen your
> enthusiasm. You can price the jack mechanisms here
> http://tinyurl.com/24rjuo.
>
>
> They aren't as efficient as these
> http://store.solar-electric.com/grsqpu.html for example, which don't
> need a sucker rod pulled regularly to change pump leathers. A friend
> has a ~150k acre ranch with about 2 dozen wells. They're trying to
> upgrade all the cylinder-based (wind and diesel) setups to solar
> submersibles as budget allows.
>
>
> Not unless the water falls back down on every stroke....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL
>
>
> Do the math for 500' and an 1-7/8" cylinder to see how "little" force
> it takes to lift that water.
>
>
> A standard 3/4hp submersible can lift to 400'. A good solar
> submersible can lift to 500' on about 300W (at a slower flow rate). An
> even smaller motor and a gearbox can exert a lot of muscle, but it
> will take longer. In an off-grid whole-house situation, by necessity
> one often has unused reserve inverter capacity. Using it to shorten
> pumping duration can make sense.
>
>
> It's old technology that can still be a good (or only) choice if water
> is too deep for a solar submersible, or if you can scrounge and don't
> value your time very highly. I worked on a solar well last week that
> was a 3 hour return trip by quad. The former wind pumper is laying in
> a crumpled heap along with a bunch of heavily rusted column pipe and
> sucker rod. All free for the taking I imagine. Bring your helicopter
> or a sturdy mule pack if you want it. Add your own cylinder from here
> http://www.deanbennett.com/deepwellcylinders.htm.
>
> Wayne
Luckily you ,,,,Speaking from Lufkin ,Texas home of the world's largest
supplier of oil
pumps.Walking beam oilpumps.
When was the last time, you had a submersible pump last 50years.
The average lifetime on our Lufkin Industries pumps are 38years.
And we have repaired pumps that died at 70years.
And walking beam water pumps have lasted 150+yrs (check some of the numbers
for British steam walking beams for municiple pumping.
The original steam walkinmg beam water pumps used in New Orleans only lasted
about 100yrs.
Granted all of them are larger than what mentioned in the thread ....pumping
water at an average of 32,00,000 gallons a day and developing about 12hp.
The piston itself usually has a checkvalve to prevent the water from going
back into well on the down stroke.
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| digitalmaster 2007-06-24, 8:25 pm |
|
"Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
news:f39t73p6i4ghnd41to9d1ujpcpp64hmeks@4ax.com...
>
> I was sitting here thinking about well pumps and something hit me. Why
> don't more
> people, especially off-grid people, use rocking-horse pumps, the same kind
> that you
> see pumping oil from wells?
>
> These things are incredibly efficient, particularly for very deep wells.
> The weight
> of the pull rod AND the weight of the water are offset by the
> counterweight on the
> rocking horse. All the electric motor has to overcome is a little
> friction and
> whatever pressure is desired at the well head.
>
> I've seen miniature rocking horse beams and gearboxes suitable for water
> sized wells.
> It would seem to me that this would be THE way to go for off-grid. A
> fractional
> horse motor could pump from essentially any depth.
>
> Comments?
>
> John
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.neon-john.com
> http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> Risk: $20 hooker, year old condom.
>
this is an interesting pump design.
http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications...oea59e/p099.GIF
| |
| wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net 2007-06-24, 8:25 pm |
| On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:12:57 -0500, "Arnold Walker"
<arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
><wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:0fgt73livjq7h0njg7be7n52sjqum75obr@4ax.com...
>Luckily you ,,,,Speaking from Lufkin ,Texas home of the world's largest
>supplier of oil
>pumps.Walking beam oilpumps.
>When was the last time, you had a submersible pump last 50years.
>The average lifetime on our Lufkin Industries pumps are 38years.
>And we have repaired pumps that died at 70years.
A wind-driven cylinder water-pump installation I worked on recently
was indeed 50-some years old. Unfortunately it was barely 2 years
since its last failure, and the owner is tired of schlepping out there
when his time could be better used elsewhere. He'd have a solar
submersible in that well in a heartbeat if not for the fact that yet
another repair was cheaper (short term) than complete replacement.
Even so, we replaced every single bit of the installation that was
below ground. It was hardly the first time, like many similar sites
much of the repair history was laying on the ground nearby. It doesn't
matter a whit that the walking beam (or the aeormotor head in this
case) has lasted forever if you have to keep going back to replace
leathers, cylinders, sucker rod, and comparatively large pipe. The
fact is that submersibles hung on smaller plastic pipe can and do go
20 years without maintenance. Mine's been in the ground
maintenance-free for 13 years. In the same time the wind setup I just
mentioned has probably had 40 site visits for checking and oiling,
plus several to replace leathers (pull all the sucker rod) and 2 major
overhauls. Most people aren't stupid - if jack pumps were a good
investment for domestic water pumping they'd be more popular. And if
"lasting" forever trumped the need for frequent repairs then existing
cylinder pumps wouldn't be getting replaced with submersibles, which
for example (by comparison) don't require fencing, and can pump
directly into pressure tanks, and are easy to control with electrical
switches etc.
>And walking beam water pumps have lasted 150+yrs (check some of the numbers
>for British steam walking beams for municiple pumping.
>The original steam walkinmg beam water pumps used in New Orleans only lasted
>about 100yrs.
>Granted all of them are larger than what mentioned in the thread ....pumping
>water at an average of 32,00,000 gallons a day and developing about 12hp.
>The piston itself usually has a checkvalve to prevent the water from going
>back into well on the down stroke.
Of course, it couldn't work without two of them. In open-top cylinders
the lower valve can be removed by capturing it with the rod and
piston. http://www.deanbennett.com/deepwellcylinders.htm But my
comment about the water going back down was meant to counter the
perpetual-motioness of the OP's thinking.
Wayne
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-25, 3:25 am |
| <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote:
>Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>
>Not unless the water falls back down on every stroke....
Perhaps we should say "most of the weight of the water."
And just the dynamic pressure?
[color=darkred]
>Do the math for 500' and an 1-7/8" cylinder to see how "little" force
>it takes to lift that water.
Perhaps we only need to lift 1' of water, if 499' stays in the pipe.
Nick
| |
| philkryder 2007-06-25, 3:25 am |
| On Jun 24, 10:09 am, Neon John <n...@never.com> wrote:
> I was sitting here thinking about well pumps and something hit me. Why don't more
> people, especially off-grid people, use rocking-horse pumps, the same kind that you
> see pumping oil from wells?
>
> These things are incredibly efficient, particularly for very deep wells. The weight
> of the pull rod AND the weight of the water are offset by the counterweight on the
> rocking horse. All the electric motor has to overcome is a little friction and
> whatever pressure is desired at the well head.
>
> I've seen miniature rocking horse beams and gearboxes suitable for water sized wells.
> It would seem to me that this would be THE way to go for off-grid. A fractional
> horse motor could pump from essentially any depth.
>
> Comments?
>
> John
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email addresshttp://www.neon-john.comhttp://www.johndearmond.com<-- best little blog on the net!
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> Risk: $20 hooker, year old condom.
John -
When the pull rod is at the top of its stroke, and the check valve
closes, then the counter-weight must be lifted by the electric motor.
Do you agree?
At that point, it would seem that lifting the counter weight would
require the same amount of force as lifting the column of water. If
not, then the counter-weight would not balance the weight of the water
column.
Having grown up with variations of sucker-rod pumps "back on the
farm," my opinion is that LEATHER and packing maintenance are the
biggest PITAs. Submersibles, would be better, if they have adequate
lift and can deal with sand conditions if present.
Piston pumps must overcome change of direction - oscillation and loss
of momentum. Submersible axial flow pumps do not have those start-stop
cycles.
Phil
| |
| philkryder 2007-06-25, 3:25 am |
| On Jun 24, 3:50 pm, "digitalmaster" <digitalmas...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> "Neon John" <n...@never.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f39t73p6i4ghnd41to9d1ujpcpp64hmeks@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> this is an interesting pump design.
>
> http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications...oea59e/p099.GIF
I used those when younger. At some point the weight of the chain will
become an issue. One nice thing is that you get the combined sealing
effect of all the sealing washers - and they can be cycled to the top
for easy inspection and maintenance.
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-06-25, 3:25 am |
|
<wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:9gut73d7k050ut1q8jhcf5rrsbl6a2k57j@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:12:57 -0500, "Arnold Walker"
> <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
>
> A wind-driven cylinder water-pump installation I worked on recently
> was indeed 50-some years old. Unfortunately it was barely 2 years
> since its last failure, and the owner is tired of schlepping out there
> when his time could be better used elsewhere. He'd have a solar
> submersible in that well in a heartbeat if not for the fact that yet
> another repair was cheaper (short term) than complete replacement.
> Even so, we replaced every single bit of the installation that was
> below ground. It was hardly the first time, like many similar sites
> much of the repair history was laying on the ground nearby. It doesn't
> matter a whit that the walking beam (or the aeormotor head in this
> case) has lasted forever if you have to keep going back to replace
> leathers, cylinders, sucker rod, and comparatively large pipe. The
> fact is that submersibles hung on smaller plastic pipe can and do go
> 20 years without maintenance. Mine's been in the ground
> maintenance-free for 13 years. In the same time the wind setup I just
> mentioned has probably had 40 site visits for checking and oiling,
> plus several to replace leathers (pull all the sucker rod) and 2 major
> overhauls. Most people aren't stupid - if jack pumps were a good
> investment for domestic water pumping they'd be more popular. And if
> "lasting" forever trumped the need for frequent repairs then existing
> cylinder pumps wouldn't be getting replaced with submersibles, which
> for example (by comparison) don't require fencing, and can pump
> directly into pressure tanks, and are easy to control with electrical
> switches etc.
You been to going to Northern Equipment grade jack pumps if you are using
leather.
The puimps with the long life records use cast iron rings,not leather like
your manual walking beam hand pumps.
And as you said, people aren't stupid so they will know why oil fields and
large water works use walkings beams or
jet pumps instead of submersibles for the most part.Many farmers around here
use model 57 boxes....the electric motor and gearbox oil
is maintenance issue for the most part..
>
>
>
> Of course, it couldn't work without two of them. In open-top cylinders
> the lower valve can be removed by capturing it with the rod and
> piston. http://www.deanbennett.com/deepwellcylinders.htm But my
> comment about the water going back down was meant to counter the
> perpetual-motioness of the OP's thinking.
>
> Wayne
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| George Ghio 2007-06-25, 3:25 am |
| Neon John wrote:
> I was sitting here thinking about well pumps and something hit me. Why don't more
> people, especially off-grid people, use rocking-horse pumps, the same kind that you
> see pumping oil from wells?
>
> These things are incredibly efficient, particularly for very deep wells. The weight
> of the pull rod AND the weight of the water are offset by the counterweight on the
> rocking horse. All the electric motor has to overcome is a little friction and
> whatever pressure is desired at the well head.
>
> I've seen miniature rocking horse beams and gearboxes suitable for water sized wells.
> It would seem to me that this would be THE way to go for off-grid. A fractional
> horse motor could pump from essentially any depth.
>
> Comments?
>
> John
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.neon-john.com
> http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> Risk: $20 hooker, year old condom.
>
Yeah and you get the manure as well for the roses
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-25, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:55:55 -0700, philkryder <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote:
>On Jun 24, 10:09 am, Neon John <n...@never.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>John -
>
>When the pull rod is at the top of its stroke, and the check valve
>closes, then the counter-weight must be lifted by the electric motor.
>Do you agree?
>
>At that point, it would seem that lifting the counter weight would
>require the same amount of force as lifting the column of water. If
>not, then the counter-weight would not balance the weight of the water
>column.
No, the counterweight and the sucker rod balance each other. The water column must
be lifted. I was wrong about that. (and I wasn't even smoking anything!)
>
>Having grown up with variations of sucker-rod pumps "back on the
>farm," my opinion is that LEATHER and packing maintenance are the
>biggest PITAs. Submersibles, would be better, if they have adequate
>lift and can deal with sand conditions if present.
I don't see tarring a whole genre of pump because of a single old design. I can
certainly think of better designs than leather discs.
>
>Piston pumps must overcome change of direction - oscillation and loss
>of momentum. Submersible axial flow pumps do not have those start-stop
>cycles.
No, not at all. There is no loss of momentum - it is transferred to and from the
flywheel/other rotating parts. This is pretty basic physics. An axial pump may or
may not be more efficient, depending on design particulars, but reciprocation is
certainly NOT an element.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
I'm so cool, I'm afraid to catch a cold.
| |
| David Williams 2007-06-25, 5:25 pm |
| -> No, the counterweight and the sucker rod balance each other. The water colu
-> be lifted. I was wrong about that. (and I wasn't even smoking
-> anything!)
There's your problem!
It would be better to make the counterweight equal to the sucker rod
plus *half* the water column. When it's pulling up, the motor would
have to lift half the column. On the opposite stroke, the motor would
have to lift the counterweight minus the sucker rod, which is also
equivalent to half the column. So the two loads on the motor would be
equal.
dow
| |
| wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net 2007-06-25, 8:25 pm |
| On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:55:55 -0700, philkryder <alt.google@Kryder.com>
wrote:
>Having grown up with variations of sucker-rod pumps "back on the
>farm," my opinion is that LEATHER and packing maintenance are the
>biggest PITAs.
Exactly. Some folks just grin and bear it, others can't wait to see
the end of the maintenance. Getting rid of steel pipe (especially the
large sizes required for open-top cylinder pumps) is another plus.
I've seen galvanized pipe in hot and caustic water that needed
replacement after only a few years. Even 1" galvanized is probably
well over $2 a foot in most areas, not to mention the cost of labor.
Galvanized pipe is also verboten now for commercial apps in AZ, so I
wouldn't be surprised if it's outlawed for domestic use in more
restrictive states.
> Submersibles, would be better, if they have adequate
>lift
Conventional submersible lifts are impressive. But wire costs can be a
killer on deep installations that require a lot of horsepower. There
are workarounds though. A job I'm familiar with reduced wire size from
#2 to #12, by using a transformer, VFD, and filter. Net savings a
couple grand.
>and can deal with sand conditions if present.
Modern conventional submersibles are remarkably sand-tolerant.
Robustness of solar-powered submersibles varies. Centrifugal types are
pretty much the same as conventionally powered models. Piston types
can't take much abuse. Diaphragm types tend to need overhauls every
few years, although parts are cheap and such pumps tend to be hung on
<1/2" poly pipe, so they can be pulled by hand. The pig's tail pumps
like the Grundfos SQFlex and the Lorentz are very efficient and
somewhat sand-tolerant, but can't take any dry-running.
Wayne
| |
| wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net 2007-06-25, 8:25 pm |
| On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:04:16 -0500, "Arnold Walker"
<arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote:
>You been to going to Northern Equipment grade jack pumps if you are using
>leather.
Nonsense. I already provided a link for typical water-pumping
cylinders.
>The puimps with the long life records use cast iron rings,not leather like
>your manual walking beam hand pumps.
Great. How about posting a link to domestic water pumps with cast iron
rings.
>And as you said, people aren't stupid so they will know why oil fields and
>large water works use walkings beams
All those with oil wells or large water works raise your hand ....
> or
>jet pumps
Jet pumps are common on domestic water wells, but they're the most
inefficient alternative, and generally only used on relatively shallow
wells and for booster apps.
> instead of submersibles for the most part.
Large submersibles for water are very popular. 100hp example here
http://www.fe-azp.com/OutsideBrochure.htm.
>Many farmers around here
>use model 57 boxes....the electric motor and gearbox oil
> is maintenance issue for the most part..
Different strokes...
If you have any links to show that jack pumps are more efficient or
more practical for off-gridders then I'd like to see them.
Wayne
| |
| wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net 2007-06-25, 8:25 pm |
| On 25 Jun 2007 01:06:12 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
><wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>Perhaps we should say "most of the weight of the water."
Sure. Deduct the rod area and only count the height difference between
static level and the surface.
>Perhaps we only need to lift 1' of water, if 499' stays in the pipe.
OK, just lift the top foot of water, or the bottom one without
disturbing what's on top of it. ;-)
Check these out http://airliftech.com/. Expensive and inefficient, but
with a large cheap rotor the latter isn't so much of an issue. Depth
and submergence limitations, but a definite possibility for a serious
DIYer.
Wayne
| |
| harry k 2007-06-26, 3:25 am |
| On Jun 24, 10:09 am, Neon John <n...@never.com> wrote:
> I was sitting here thinking about well pumps and something hit me. Why don't more
> people, especially off-grid people, use rocking-horse pumps, the same kind that you
> see pumping oil from wells?
>
> These things are incredibly efficient, particularly for very deep wells. The weight
> of the pull rod AND the weight of the water are offset by the counterweight on the
> rocking horse. All the electric motor has to overcome is a little friction and
> whatever pressure is desired at the well head.
>
> I've seen miniature rocking horse beams and gearboxes suitable for water sized wells.
> It would seem to me that this would be THE way to go for off-grid. A fractional
> horse motor could pump from essentially any depth.
>
> Comments?
>
> John
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email addresshttp://www.neon-john.comhttp://www.johndearmond.com<-- best little blog on the net!
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> Risk: $20 hooker, year old condom.
Your thinking is a bit wrong. If you weight the conterbalance to
equal the force needed to lift the water, then you have to apply power
to lift the conterweight on the down stroke. Same power requirement
as if the conterbalance wasn't there.
You are talking about a piston pump which were common on windmills and
then "modern" solutions to do away with the windmill and its problems
was the used of a 'pump jack' driven by a gas or electric motor but
using the same piston pump/sucker rod setup. Both systems were a low
volume delivery but could be run constantly. Lots of maintenance.
Harry K
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-06-26, 5:25 pm |
|
<wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:imh0831snf9h81eruh4b3b0n5moaedfd89@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:04:16 -0500, "Arnold Walker"
> <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Nonsense. I already provided a link for typical water-pumping
> cylinders.
>
>
> Great. How about posting a link to domestic water pumps with cast iron
> rings.
>
>
> All those with oil wells or large water works raise your hand ....
>
>
> Jet pumps are common on domestic water wells, but they're the most
> inefficient alternative, and generally only used on relatively shallow
> wells and for booster apps.
>
>
> Large submersibles for water are very popular. 100hp example here
> http://www.fe-azp.com/OutsideBrochure.htm.
>
>
> Different strokes...
>
> If you have any links to show that jack pumps are more efficient or
> more practical for off-gridders then I'd like to see them.
>
> Wayne
Lufkin Industries and any industrial grade walking beam manufacturer in the
present and all the steam
walking beams given from earlier period,can actually buy yourself 4 of them
on Preston Antique Steam website (rated at 32,000,000
gallons per day while running at the same pace as an oilpump in strokes per
minute....with cast iron rings installed in the 1940's or50's)
The cylinder on the old flood/city water pumps were often larger than the
pipe on suction or outlet side.Both New Orlean and the pumps
from Preston antique have 30 to 36 inch cylinders while inlet and outlet
pipe is a foot or less.New Orleans at one time had flood steam walking
beams with 6foot cylinders working 2foot pipe.....can't remmember the stroke
length, but a little oversquare.They changed to electric in the 60's and
ended up using more power and maintence to do the same job.
As a sidenotw, steam was used to operate walking beams on oil well and city
water before gas and electric.
Check out some of your old tinplate photos of Penn state and New York oil
fields.
And if biomass fueled ,a cheap version of solar....plants do tend to be
solar powered ,but you are probaly into mushrooms or something .
Trees and grass tend to be cheaper per KW developed than manmade solar
arrays.
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| philkryder 2007-06-28, 3:25 am |
| On Jun 25, 7:51 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 10:09 am, Neon John <n...@never.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your thinking is a bit wrong. If you weight the conterbalance to
> equal the force needed to lift the water, then you have to apply power
> to lift the conterweight on the down stroke. Same power requirement
> as if the conterbalance wasn't there.
>
> You are talking about a piston pump which were common on windmills and
> then "modern" solutions to do away with the windmill and its problems
> was the used of a 'pump jack' driven by a gas or electric motor but
> using the same piston pump/sucker rod setup. Both systems were a low
> volume delivery but could be run constantly. Lots of maintenance.
>
> Harry K
yup - by the time I came along it was the pump jack and electric
motor.
One of my parting gifts before leaving home was a piece of 3/8 inch
stainless rod for use in the sucker rod string at the point where the
packing nut compressed the graphite impregnated packing.
It was a huge improvement.
Phil
| |
| philkryder 2007-06-28, 3:25 am |
| On Jun 25, 8:01 am, Neon John <n...@never.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:55:55 -0700, philkryder <alt.goo...@Kryder.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, the counterweight and the sucker rod balance each other. The water column must
> be lifted. I was wrong about that. (and I wasn't even smoking anything!)
>
>
>
>
> I don't see tarring a whole genre of pump because of a single old design. I can
> certainly think of better designs than leather discs.
>
>
>
>
> No, not at all. There is no loss of momentum - it is transferred to and from the
> flywheel/other rotating parts. This is pretty basic physics. An axial pump may or
> may not be more efficient, depending on design particulars, but reciprocation is
> certainly NOT an element.
>
> John
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email addresshttp://www.neon-john.comhttp://www.johndearmond.com<-- best little blog on the net!
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> I'm so cool, I'm afraid to catch a cold.
Go through this slowly if you would for me.
It seems like the reciprocating forces are going to go through
sinusoidal max and min as the piston rises and falls.
I guess that I can believe that a well lubricated system with
excellent bearings can capture and convert those forces from
reciprocal to rotating and back each cycle...
But if they are as inherently efficient, why don't large power plants
run steam pistons instead of turbines?
Regarding better designs - I'm sure that O rings and check valves
could be better than packing nuts and leathers.
But there is still friction.
I wonder if it is more or less than the turbulence losses in an axial
flow turbine...
And pulling fifty feet of steel pipe was a pain - while the
submersibles had lighter weight plastic pipe that was cheaper and not
subject to corrosion.
I'd sure hate to pull several hundred feet of steel and have to
unscrew it at each junction.
Plastic can be coiled or bent gently and laid out on the ground.
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-06-28, 3:25 am |
|
"philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message
news:1183006494.479361.252930@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 8:01 am, Neon John <n...@never.com> wrote:
>
>
> Go through this slowly if you would for me.
>
> It seems like the reciprocating forces are going to go through
> sinusoidal max and min as the piston rises and falls.
> I guess that I can believe that a well lubricated system with
> excellent bearings can capture and convert those forces from
> reciprocal to rotating and back each cycle...
>
> But if they are as inherently efficient, why don't large power plants
> run steam pistons instead of turbines?
Because you are half right with break point being about 200hp.
Turbine below that point are not as effecient as they are above.
So for small(less than 200hp) plants the piston steamer is still king of the
steam plants.
>
> Regarding better designs - I'm sure that O rings and check valves
> could be better than packing nuts and leathers.
> But there is still friction.
> I wonder if it is more or less than the turbulence losses in an axial
> flow turbine...
>
> And pulling fifty feet of steel pipe was a pain - while the
> submersibles had lighter weight plastic pipe that was cheaper and not
> subject to corrosion.
> I'd sure hate to pull several hundred feet of steel and have to
> unscrew it at each junction.
> Plastic can be coiled or bent gently and laid out on the ground.
You can also use schedule120 pvc instead of steel in most cases.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
|
|
|