Water well height

[loadstone]

I have a question, and a way to produce electricity i would like to share but first the question. Does any one have two wells on their propety with different head, or with differing heights from water to ground level between the two wells?

[keithturtle]

This would probably come into play in the mountains, but the volume of water from the higher well would be too low to make any significant power.   Drawdown rates would kill the well if you pulled enough water out to make real power.  In fact, the power used to pull the water out of the higher well would offset any gains, I would think.

Possibly an artesian spring flowing from the hillside feeding a very small dynamo could make small power.

Surface water is a better bet IMO

Turtle

[TomW]

I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove water from one bore and put it into another or even return it to the original. All those heat pumps, etc that use wells are sealed loops in the water

Besides the lack of workability that is a problem I see.

Tom

[loadstone]

Hello Tom and Keith,

By the way this is an incredible site, can not thank you enough.

I live in Guatemala and the water table levels change tremendously here. For example I had a well drilled for a water project for a town of about 7000 people and we hit water at 624 feet, and stopped at 700 if I remember correctly (8 years ago) 250 gpm after an hour the water level did not drop....great supply. One - two miles away the water level is 45 feet (in town). Because of property rights etc... I drilled in the middle of the property that I own instead of risking elsewhere. My point is that this difference in height is a great potential for hydro from well water that has really gone untapped, here and other places as well. I will edit this in about an hour to add other info and write more of this idea. I agree with you Tom that probably it is against laws and availability of technology but in all my testing and experiments it is always better to use the weight of water and not the force of it.

Jon

[loadstone]

Hello again, obviously longer than an hour.

My point from the previous post is that it is always better to use the weight of the water than the force, for example using the microhydro low head web site (I know that this is extremely basic for most here) I see that the eff. range is from 42 to 53 (gpm *8.33*feet/33000*.74569= actual kw). This is because a big percentage of energy when it is deflected is lost. Many systems do not make good use of their potential energy because they are not placing their weight at 90 deg to the axis all the time. A good generator depending on load has an eff. of 65 - 85 percent making it a more ideal setup for a strictly gravity fed water system. An example of an energy inefficient system is a water wheel although it is very aesthetic and cost efficient. The reason is just a few of the paddles are always at 90 deg. A far better sys is one that uses two wheels and pulleys (7 % loss per pulley) that step up the rpms to usable speed by the generator but, that I know of you can not find a system like this to purchase, you have to build it from scratch. More later.

Jon

Just finished my final prototype and paperwork for patent app. of a new water pump. Made a crude video with my cell phone. you can see it here www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXaq0dNqqOE The one shown in the video is not the final product. I finally found a place where I live to supply marine bearings. Then I changed the system all together with great results.

[keithturtle]

Interesting build.  For flooded bearings try this stuff

http://www.vesconite.com/prod/hilube.htm

I got some for the turbine project but haven't got that far yet

Turtle

[loadstone]

Thanks Keith,

I will definately check it out. The new build still uses bearings to seperate the low pressure from the high pressure side, and living in a developing country has huge challenges for inventions. I finally found a boat repair/dealership with the right bearings. The problem was with the sealed bearings the pump was literally sucking out the lithium grease. It was then i new i was on to a good pump.

Thanks

Jon

[loadstone]

hello,

Do you understand the system i was writing about or would you prefer a drawing of using the weight not flow.

Jon

[TomW]

hello,

Do you understand the system i was writing about or would you prefer a drawing of using the weight not flow.

Jon

Please do..

I cannot grasp how you can extract energy without flow?

Tom

[loadstone]

Good point again, any sys has to have flow or no work is done but my sys depends more on using the weight of the water not the force of the flow hitting against fins where much of the deflected water is not used. water has 3 properties/characteristics that enable it to do work weight buoancy, and force/movement. I am centering in on weight.

Jon

[keithturtle]

When using water's weight, it is necessarily weight in motion.  33000 lbs raised one foot in one minute is one HP, or 746 watts.

Weight in motion necessarily means the movement of water, which is flow, and the height differential is head.   I guess I'm having trouble understanding how you're  making power with that low of flow, given the head you're working with.

Conversely, if I understand it correctly, in fluid dynamics the energy increases as the cube of the velocity.  For example, a wind turbine that puts out 100 watts in a 10 mph wind doesn't put out 200 watts in a 20 mph wind, it puts out 800 watts.   If it were possible to accellerate the same volume of water to a higher velocity, could it be made to put out more power than the same volume of water that was simply falling the same distance, weight (pressure, PSI) only?

I dunno. 

Turtle, slow

[TomW]

Did I miss the drawing?

That is what I was looking to see.

Tom

[loadstone]

Sorry, no you didnt miss the drawing i have not had time to post it, i am in the process of moving, i will get to it soon.

[wpowokal]

While I hope Jon has discovered a new pump my feeling is that this post is a load of bollocks, in the video we have a straw thingy then a cylinder with holes...................

Allan

[TomW]

While I hope Jon has discovered a new pump my feeling is that this post is a load of bollocks, in the video we have a straw thingy then a cylinder with holes...................

Allan

Al;

Did I miss the video? I have a very similar feeling here but am NOT allowed to express it in any detail but will you share the video you speak of?

Sadly, we draw them like a rotting fish draws flies.

Thanks.

Tom of the soon to be Great White North where we wish for self gathering firewood but do not get it!

[loadstone]

Woooooaaa,

First of all, go back and look at the video again. The theory of the straws and the other "thingy" is the same i simply posted it to try to help some one else out who might want to duplicate what i have done. Especially if they have need to move huge quantities of water. Second, i never said that the video had any thing to do with the the other idea. The other idea is simple a chain connected to two wheels with containers to hold the water, but it applies its force at 90 degrees so that it is more effecient. I have not, nor will i feed you "BOLLOCKS" whatever that is. Simply trying to help, o and dont worry, i would not try to sell anything here either shipping would be a bear. Wow are there really that many jerks here that you have to.......ahhhh never mind, i am typing this on my cell phone and it would take toooo long to say.

Good to meet ya Allan,

Thanks for holding your thoughts Tom.
Here is the link not trying to buzz around anyone.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXaq0dNqqOE

Jon

[DamonHD]

The point is that we do unfortunately get people visiting who think that if they are ignorant of the laws of physics (or aggressive, aloof and rude enough), eg they paid no attention to science or maths at school and consider themselves to be 'above' such trivia, then they get a free pass and can ignore the laws of thermodynamics, build perpetual motion machines and other 'OverUnity'-related crap.

If you can indeed demonstrate that your idea does not rely on breaking the laws of physics as we know it, then we're interested.  Of course, there may be still practical issues, but that's not a crime.

So, that's why you are seeing some tetchy words.

Rgds

Damon

[loadstone]

Thanks Damon, well said. Actually the percentage effeciency above existing turbines/wheels is small but multiply it times hours of use cam mean a savings. Thats all i am after. I will leave the idea of perpetual motion up to God.

Jon

[artv]

Hi Jon,......I just watched your video,...this is very interesting,(it took an hour to download)..and why no sound??..sorry I hate dial-up
You added straws , to a spinning shaft , bent at 90 degs???.......the 90 degs. bend , is about 1-4??...........
The drilled cylinder.......replaces the straws??........artv

[12AX7]

It looks like a powerful pump,  but I'm still a bit confused.   The cylinder with the holes,  is it hollow?  What is the clearance between the cylinder and the pipe it's mounted in?
The OD of the cylinder and the ID of the pipe?

Does the pump work in a "some what" linear nature?  in other words does it start pumping at a low RPM,  is there a minimum operating speed?

[TomW]

Still do not get how this "pump" relates to extracting power from the weight of water?

I am not the sharpest tack in the box but it just does not jump out at me what you are trying to get by following this route?

I kind of get the pumping part but not how it can be used to create power in the way you propose.

Please elaborate.

Tom

[keithturtle]

I'm not sure his pump is related to the two-well power idea.   As far as the efficiency of that pump being greater than "unity", it's simply a matter of accurate measurement.  It seems to work quite well in the low head (<1 metre) realm, and just how well it does can be quantified easily enough.

I wonder if there is an element of vortex action going on in those holes as the cylinder spins, accelerating the water and making it move lots for little power input.   Too bad James Dyson doesn't visit this board.

It definitely deserves a closer look, if low head transfer is what you need

Turtle, slow

[loadstone]

THIS PUMP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXTACTRACTING ELECTRIC FROM WATER, THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM SAYING THIS. This pump is simply a great multi economic way to pump water, that is new to the market. I have been moving all day, i will post about the other idea when i can, and please never, never mention overunity with me, this is efficient and that is all.

[TomW]

THIS PUMP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXTACTRACTING ELECTRIC FROM WATER, THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM SAYING THIS. This pump is simply a great multi economic way to pump water, that is new to the market. I have been moving all day, i will post about the other idea when i can, and please never, never mention overunity with me, this is efficient and that is all.

No need to get all pissy or be an ass.

You offered to post a "drawing" I asked if you would. That video is what you posted.

So what is your problem?

You appear to change your "story" with every post.

I am not taking this bait again.

You do not get to tell us what to say or do . Period. End Quote.
.
Tom

[wpowokal]

Now steady on Tom I understood that you and I had a gentlemen' s agreement that I was the official Grumpy Old Bugger on this site, now you are trying to mussel in on my title, just not on, go and enjoy your winder wonderland and leave me hot under the collar here in high humidity land.

"That it should come to this!". - (Act I, Scene II).

Allan of the jungle  

[loadstone]

Hey, ok, sorry for being a bit "pissy" in that last post. I guess i was holding a bit of a grudge from you calling me a fly, unwarranted. Then the other post talked about how it was because some people come here trying to sell their proposed perpetual machines, and i was trying to make a point that this pump is far from it. I posted a video on you tube the same time....and i believe before anyone asked to see the drawing (which i still cant do because no internet at my house yet) so i am simply trying to answer the comments about the pump until i can make the other post. I am not changing with every post. If i am please tell me how and at least let me explain. I will put out the drawing tomarrow, and believe me after all this talk it will be very anticlimatic. SORRY,TOM, i am really not trying to get on your bad side. Someone asked about the pump, the alum cyl was 6 3/4 x3 1/4 iirc inside a 4" PVC tee, i used a drill to turn the ported cyl. After a week it froze up so bad you could no longer turn it by hand but still pumped 65 gpm, i think in the video it was turning about 1800 rpm. I am not sure why i have not seen this tried before but it is very efficient. The larger diameter and faster speed effect head or psi and length effects gpm. It is possible by using cf calc to taylor make a pump, of any size. I have not seen any problem of cavitation. with the new design I am currently trying it on an outboard motor, where i can get the rpm higher.

Sorry if i got started off on the wrong foot.........

Hey artv, i remember those downloads they are a pain, no sound because i clipped the vid together from various videos i did with my cell, some have me talking to the person holding the cell and i didnt think it was worth adding so i muted the clip, the one where i was filling the barrel the bearing was really screaming.

Jon

[dualsport54]

The other idea is simple a chain connected to two wheels with containers to hold the water, but it applies its force at 90 degrees so that it is more effecient.

Just from this quick description, the idea sounds like a bucket chain style pump being used backwards. Chinese used this for raising water thousands of years ago. (See image if it comes through. Courtesy of Wikipedia "Chain Pump".) Operating backwards from a high water source to some lower discharge point would allow for extracting the potential energy stored in the elevated water, but rotation would be very slow requiring significant gearing to raise revs to a useable level. (Available torque could be very high.)



Somewhat different subject: Tom W lives in paradise in Northern hemisphere... Allan lives in paradise in Southern hemishere... and I'm stuck in Ohio. Life's just not fair! I need a beer.  

[loadstone]

Hey Dualsport, True, but, they do not have kings Island,

The above drawing is more or less exactly what I am getting at.

you have to have a track like what is used to carry the weight on a garage door, and the containers travel in a vertical path around the 4 wheels (left top and bottom, right top and bottom with the container in the middle), but the picture is what I am talking about. You increase the rpms by gears or pulleys attached to the generator. I will add the math in an update, but it is more effecient than a turbin. You end up with huge amounts of torque and very low rpm. divide one and multiply the other. Using the formula Torque = Power x 60 / (2 x PI x Rot) minus resistance coeffiecient and copper res you end up with more than you do if you use a turbin that deflects 40 - 55 percent of the power. I will post the math soon, since you posted the picture. Thanks...no internet at my house yet......but you got the idea.
 

Jon

[loadstone]

Ok, I will modify this through out the week, but the idea will stay the same. I hope the people here who are much smarter than I am can help me fine tune the math parts, especially that have to do with resistance. This means you too Tom, I value what you have to say. Sorry it has taken so long to post this but I really think it will pay out in the long run. I have attached an excel sheet that does the calculations. If you know the gpm and head, the sheet calculates how much torque and rpms this bucket and chain generator can produce. If you have a target power that you are trying to acheive from your stream then you can use the formula Torque = Power x 60 / (2 x PI x Rot), then adjust the container size in the excel sheet to match the torque needed. If someone wants to tell me how to extract unknown power from the formula instead of unknown torque then I could easily plug those numbers into the sheet for everything to be automatic. We can work out the resistance into the formula later.

This will be lengthy but to me worth it.

First the problem with wheels. force applied to the periphery of the wheel is only max efficient if the force is applied at 90 deg. The water wheel uses the weight timed to the flow but only the water container at 90 deg. is applying full force the others are working at a some cosine degree less. Depending on the diameter of a water wheel and the force it applies ( force in foot pounds divided by all the weight of the containers ) the efficiency is at best 63 percent. Turbines apply force at 90 degrees....this is good but the problem is deflection, to prove deflection and the force vector of water, fill a plastic bag full of water and watch the side push out, true it does not push out the same psi as the depth but the difference is deflection of the water molecules. This is the same problem as a turbine. If you are going to use a turbine use one with multi ports and the lightest turbine possible (no flywheel effect). That same difference of deflection (previous sentence) is the percentage of in efficiency of a turbine, not to mention the cosine difference while waiting for the next fin on the turbine to take a 90 degree position. There are very few systems efficient the way I see it......and believe me this is only the way I see it, with my limited knowledge.

If you use a system like talked about in the picture that dualsport54 posted and made it completely vertical then this is what you get:

Let´s say you have a stream  that has a 10 foot drop and has a flow of about 550 gpm. I looked up the sheet on the micro hydro power site and saw that you can get 150 watts with that flow.  If you put those numbers into the excel sheet and tweak the gpm to 550 using an 8x8x6 container the container weight is 13.8589755 with a 2 foot wheel turning  35.105299 rpm, total fp of torque on the wheel of 187.0961 you would get 688 watts. minus resistance. A 78%  increase on paper would probably translate to more like a 40% increase when resistance is taken into account. I will write more later. Please see the attached excel sheet. The numbers in red are automatically calc the numbers in green are your new numbers to input.

[loadstone]

Hello again,

I figured out the equation for an unknown power. I wish I had been a better math student when I was younger. If Torque = Power*60/(2*pi*rot) then it makes sense that POWER = Torque*(2*pi*rotation)/60 so attached is the new excel sheet that calculates your amperage potential from your stream using the bucket and chain idea.

The interesting thing is that container size does not effect amp output, because the smaller the container the less weight, but the faster the rpm because of the flow of the stream. Conversely the larger the container the more weight and the slower rpms. I put a box telling you how much your system will weigh so that you can tailor it to not over task your support structure, cables...etc... I think ideally the slower the better because you will get less splash when the water is filling the containers, but then weight becomes a problem. In the excel sheet there are calculated outputs for 10 feet of head but really are not necessary since I included the new calc above.

Please tell me what you think so far.

Jon

[loadstone]

In the above post i meant to say watts instead of amps.

I also have an excel sheet that calculates watts from rainwater runoff from your warehouse roof, based on annual averages, if anyone is interested. Just ask and i will post it.

Any comments, or ideas.

[keithturtle]

Thanks for posting that video and the spreadsheet.  I picked up some round  stock UHMW nylon to experiment with the design.  That vesconite will solve the suction side bearing issue easily.   I'm wondering if some vortex action in all them holes is helping the pumping process along.  If one could counterbore the inside opening of each hole to initiate spin more quickly that might help answer that question.  I have a drum pump that probably draws the same power as your drill but takes a good bit longer to transfer that much water. 

By the water horsepower formula

TDH x GPM / 3960  and comparing it to power used, we can quickly determine just how good that thing is- I think you've got something there.   As an aside, it might make an incredibly simple yet buildable jet-drive for model or small-scale watercraft propulsion...

Turtle, in the water

[loadstone]

Hey turtle, i agree, but i really doubt it is initiating a vortex, but i did not look into that. I decided to gear it towards small craft but with formula to easily adapt to large needs. Let me know how that special plastic works. The problem i ran into is there is huge suction, that turns into friction, until i opened both ends, the came across the idea (final phase) where i used mass produceable plates....i will tell you more once i get the patent judgement back. Anyway i have never seen a more versatile pump....o, keep your hole size between 1/4 and 3/8, keep us up to date.

Jon

P.s. the bournelli effect requiring a special volute does not effect the gpm/psi so that is why omitted it on the video model.