What Is The Gmp Needed For Pool Infloor Cleaning System
Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning Effectiveness and Efficiency
- Thread starter jonpcar
- Start engagement
- Add bookmark
- #one
Original Claim - see PRELUDE below information technology
OK, I accept made some quick edits to this thread afterwards laying awake all night and realizing that I take wasted $1000s (probably $5K-$7K) over the past 25 years by not adjusting one valve on my system. More edits and comments are coming but here is what I believe to be the bottom line:
I adapted one valve on my system and doubled the effectiveness of my pool'due south In-Floor Cleaning Organisation (IFCS) AND also improved its ability efficiency by l%.
---------------------------------
PRELUDE
Through this thread's conversations, I accept realized that the claims above are true; though not because I found "the" gilded elixir to fixing ALL In-Flooring-Cleaning-Systems even though it was "gilt" for me. They are true considering my in-flooring cleaning system had been running inefficiently (and ineffectively) for the terminal 25 years. I suspect that there are many in-flooring systems in use that are similarly running inefficiently and would benefit from adjustments.
Further UPDATE: I stopped making changes/postings to this thread every bit I have gotten involved with other projects, some related to this thread and some totally unrelated (like helping enhance twin grandsons for a yr, haha). IFCSs are not as complicated every bit this thread indicates, merely there are some intricacies. For those that understand the information and how it applies to their IFCS , I recall 1 of the nearly informative graphs of this thread is in this post: Mail #173 On this Page...
Optimize Your In-Flooring Cleaning Effectiveness and Efficiency
www.troublefreepool.com End of FURTHER UPDATE
Through these experiments, I establish operating points my IFCS ran at a college energy efficiency, and at double the effective cleaning rate. Operating at these points is going to salve money and make my in-floor cleaning more effective. Fifty-fifty though I even so have not found my "optimum" operating indicate, I am standing experiments to get closer. Thanks to all who are participating in this process.
One conclusion of this thread was already known by the experts on this board (thank you Mark, mas985): to ensure optimal energy efficiency for in-floor cleaning, you MUST run your in-floor cleaning system at the minimum required manifold PSI which nevertheless cleans your pool effectively. A different estimation is that this turns out to be the minimum GPM required to run your in-flooring cleaning system. It took me a Sandlot "for-eeeeeeee-ver" to comprehend and fully accept this.
It turns out that at that place are some extensions to this conclusion that may employ to some systems. If your in-floor cleaning organization works better with college GPM than the minimum described in the previous paragraph (for diverse reasons, some being explored in this thread), then there is a method to increase GPM through your in-floor cleaning system that may non impact energy efficiency "that much". This method is an alternative to simply upping the RPM of your pump to reach higher GPM...a method that is of course inherently inefficient. Benefits to these extensions are still being explored.
After realizing this...I am going through this thread and making changes to my comments that are merely wrong, misleading, red herrings, etc. This is a work in progress and volition accept some time. Actually this editing process is on hold temporarily while we discuss more problems in this thread...my understanding of the terms "effectiveness" and "efficiency" continues to evolve. I don't want to become dorsum and re-edit my edits (which I take already done in many cases, haha). So if you beginning reading this thread, go on in mind that at that place are some inaccuracies and errors in many of my posts, especially the earlier ones upward until my personal "eureka" moment at post #105. However, that doesn't hateful my posts after that don't take bug, this topic turns out to be more than complicated than I initially thought.
Somewhen, I hope to be able to consolidate some of the best suggestions/discussions of this thread into a single spot, if (tbd) there are some that are generally useful (kind of a All-time Known Methods approach). Some BKMs may be related to the "extensions" mentioned in a higher place, others may non.
This volition take some time. My "experiments" have turned out to exist a fun time-sink that accept pretty much sucked up ALL my spare time for the last 10 days and cannot go on to exercise so. After the initial flurry, this procedure is going to slow downward and eventually cease. Yet, participation IS encouraged! I would dear to hear of anyone wanting to attempt like projects or characterizing of their In-Flooring Cleaning System (IFCS).
-----------------------------
Dorsum to the original thread...
A few years ago when I did my puddle remodel and pool equipment replacement, I had bought a FlowVIS meter to mensurate pump period in Gallons per Infinitesimal (GPM). I never got around to installing information technology until yesterday afternoon and take now realized that I should have done this a while ago. I spent most of yesterday tardily afternoon and this morn taking data to expect at for cleaning system optimization. I accept come to some conclusions that are specific to my pool equipment/setup, but certainly apply to many others besides.
Here is a picture of my install…
- Add bookmark
- #ii
.
I took a agglomeration of data at various pump speeds and various system configurations. Some were very similar so I'll be posting only some subsets. I varied the pump RPM in all configurations. My pump is a Hayward Ecostar and was set to values from 100% max (3450 RPM), downwards to 20% max (690 RPM).
The data I collected was: Wattage (Watts), Gallons per Minute (GPM), Filter Force per unit area (for the heck of information technology).
The information derived that I volition show here is Gallons per kWh: this is the # of gallons of puddle water filtered for each kWh that you are charged by your electric company. The higher this number, the more than efficiently you are operating your pump. This is calculated by the following formula:
Gallons/kWH = (GPM*60*thou)/Watts
[Unknown to me at the time of this mail service is that in that location is already a standard called Free energy Factor (EF) that measures the energy efficiency of pumps. Free energy Cistron is Gallons/Wh which means that information technology is the aforementioned number that I have calculated above just non multiplied by chiliad. EF = Gallons/Wh = (GPM*threescore)/Watts. The higher the EF, the more efficient your pump is operating.]
Hither in Gilbert, AZ we take pretty cheap power. Correct now, I am on the Fourth dimension of Use Plan and each kWh is roughly 7.5 cents offpeak, and 22 cents onpeak (1-8PM Mon-Friday). We are pretty lucky from some of the values I have seen posted.
The system configurations tested included 1) Returns through Pool Wall Returns two) Returns through Puddle Waterfall 3) Returns through Puddle In-flooring Cleaning System 4) And a couple variations that you volition run across.
#2 (Return through Pool Waterfall) were ballpark close enough to #i that I will not even post about that. I likewise collected data for most of these scenarios in which I drew h2o from the Top (skimmer) and from the Bottom (drain), controlled past my skimmer diverter. Once again these were ballpark equivalent although drawing from the bottom put more strain/attempt on the pump in full general. I attribute that to additional pipage, turns in the pipe from bottom drain to skimmer.
By the fashion…please point out whatsoever mistakes yous might see in my methodology or calculations, I put this together rather speedily, and on the fly.
====
Edit: this table and the following comments within this post are common noesis in that VS pumps can run slower and salvage you power overall past filtering the water more slowly. Actually the interesting data here is that using the FlowVIS, there is a way to determine the "optimum" point to run your pump at, and that my pump (and I am sure others too) have a floor to increasing that efficiency...going too low actually hurts efficiency.
100% Return through Pool's Wall Returns| Pump Speed | RPM | Watts | GPM | Filter Force per unit area | Gallons/kWh | ||
| 100 | 3450 | 2290 | 105 | 24.5 | | 2751 | <max flow through system is in the 100gpm to 105gpm range |
| 95 | 3278 | 2190 | 102 | 22.5 | | ii 795 | < |
| xc | 3105 | 1653 | 93 | 20 | 3376 | ||
| 85 | 2933 | 1366 | 90 | eighteen | 3953 | ||
| fourscore | 2760 | 1145 | 83 | 16 | 4349 | ||
| 75 | 2588 | 933 | 78 | 14.5 | 5016 | ||
| lxx | 2415 | 762 | 70 | 12.v | 5512 | ||
| 65 | 2243 | 616 | 63 | xi | 6136 | ||
| 60 | 2070 | 493 | 58 | 9.5 | 7059 | ||
| 55 | 1898 | 391 | 53 | 8 | 8133 | ||
| 50 | 1725 | 315 | 48 | 6.5 | 9143 | ||
| 45 | 1553 | 251 | 41 | 5.v | 9801 | ||
| 40 | 1380 | 199 | 36 | 4 | 10854 | ||
| 35 | 1208 | 152 | 30 | 3.5 | | 11842 | < near "power efficient" setting for pool filtering |
| 30 | 1035 | 140 | 22 | two.5 | 9429 | ||
| 25 | 863 | 136 | 18 | 1.5 | 7941 | ||
| 20 | 690 | 136 | 8 | 1 | 3529 |
[previous to doing these experiments, I was running my pump to skim/filter (not for cleaning using the popups) at the 30% , 1035 RPM level, almost 20% less efficient than my new number]
The about efficient spot to operate my pump is at 35% max speed, a point at which nigh 12K gallons of water can exist moved through the filter per kWh. IF I tin can filter my water sufficiently (to my satisfaction) during the timeframe of a physical day (actually I only run the pump in off-acme electricity hours), then that is the speed I should run my pump at (35% max =1208 RPM) to be well-nigh efficient when I am not using the cleaning system.
On the EcoStar there appears to be a bottom minimum to the power describe (136 watts) which means that it doesn't brand a lot of sense to operate at 30% or less. One reason might be for a water feature (for example my waterfalls) where I just want a dribbling of water for groundwork ambience.
- Add bookmark
- #iii
Post-obit are some long posts simply may are specially worthwhile to those with in-flooring cleaning systems.
The next set of information was taken by varying the pump speed with the return through my in-floor cleaning arrangement. My in-floor cleaning system is i of the earlier ones (built in 1993), then I would expect these have gotten better since that time and might avoid some of the issues I see with my data. But, I don't know if y'all can tell for sure unless y'all have the information, I wouldn't have been able to. Examples of improvements include 2" pipe (mine are only 1 ½" and I am stuck with them) and more efficient distribution heads/cleaning pop-ups.
Some notes about this information beforehand. (one) In general, in-floor cleaning systems rotate through zones in the pool. When they movement from one zone to the next, there is some time when both zones are "on" and there is increased menstruation through the system. I didn't take the information during these transition times, I waited for simply 1 zone to exist active to read the flows, power, etc. (2) Too, each zone is slightly different because of number of heads, different pipe lengths, etc. I DIDn't have the data from just 1 zone to be perfectly consistent (which would have taken forever)…I did notice some differences when the pump would select the zones that included smaller step pop-ups, but information technology wasn't enough divergence to make me want to change my methodology.
I'm only posting pump max speeds down to 70% since the in-floor cleaning system requires higher speeds to operate the pop-ups. Also, when cleaning the pool, pump efficiency is not the disquisitional concern, cleaning your pool is. Therefore, whatsoever speed yous run your pump at has to have sufficient power/force per unit area to move droppings/dirt effectually in your pool so that (somewhen) it is sucked into the bleed or the skimmer so that the filter can filter it out of the pool water.
100% Render through the In-Floor Cleaning System| Pump Speed | RPM | Watts | GPM | Filter Force per unit area | Gallons/KWh | ||
| 100 | 3450 | 1614 | 50 | 34 | | 1859 | < max flow through "cleaning" system is only 50gpm |
| 95 | 3278 | 1412 | 49 | 31 | 2082 | ||
| 90 | 3105 | 1206 | 47 | 27.5 | 2338 | ||
| 85 | 2933 | 1008 | 43 | 24.5 | 2560 | ||
| eighty | 2760 | 873 | xl | 22 | | 2749 | < here and here are where I've |
| 75 | 2588 | 691 | 37 | nineteen.v | | 3213 | < been operating my pump for cleaning |
| 70 | 2415 | 573 | 33 | 17 | 3455 | ||
| 65 | 2243 | 473 | 31 | fourteen.5 | 3932 |
[As we observe out, I should NOT accept been running my system at the fourscore%, 2760 RPM number. I was overdriving my popups and wasting energy pushing the water around too forcefully. Fixing that is the main reason that I saw an improvement in my Power Efficiency of 50%. When I somewhen ran tests on my system I found that I should have been running my pump at closer to the 65%, 2243 RPM, which results in a much more efficient Gallons/kWh (3932). However, note that at that pump speed, I would but exist filtering 31 gpm, which affects my word below.]
Over the final few years (since my VSP install), I have been running my cleaning system at the 75%/80% puddle pump max numbers. I usually run information technology for a few hours in the morning (off peak electricity) to do the cleaning and take generally been satisfied by information technology. This means (by looking at the tabular array 75-80%) that I go about 40 gallons per minute blasting out of my pool pop-ups to stir up the dirt and debris. The Gallons/KWh are terrible every bit compared to the previous table in the prior post: In my usage model, the pool filters just ¼ of the gallons per kWh of electricity when using the cleaning organization vs the pool wall returns (approximately 3K gallons vs 12k gallons). But remember, hither the goal is to clean the pool, non be power efficient; so you have to bite the bullet to some caste.
The BAD thing near blasting out 40 gallons per minute on the popups is that the system is ONLY filtering 40 gallons per minute of water, really [email protected] considering the max flow for my organisation seems to be about 100 GPM. [Annotation: I later find that my optimum run rate is really only 31 GPM, fifty-fifty worse than the 40 talked about here] Remember the goal is to "stir upwardly" the debris then that it tin be filtered, 40gpm doesn't reach that effectively or chop-chop. I realized that suction of my cleaning organisation is extremely limited by its "render" adequacy to the pool through the cleaning popular-ups. Expect at the upper limit hit (around 50 gpm) even when operating the pump at its highest speeds 90-100%. I'm certain many others take this same issue, especially older systems like mine.
In whatever case, what I wanted to try was to enable two zones at a time in my cleaning system's caput distributer just to see what would happen to the numbers. I took it apart trying to figure out if there was some way to jury-rig that possibility…there wasn't, peculiarly considering that since I am the pool's original owner, I continue to become gratis replacement parts (pop-ups, gears, etc) every bit part of Shasta's original warranty on its cleaning arrangement. I didn't want to have a chance on losing that.
And then instead, I decided on some experiments to increase the menstruum (GPM) past partially opening the pool's wall render valves in parallel with the cleaning system render. My goal was to increment the menses through the organization (specially the filter) during cleaning and so that information technology filters faster and possibly more efficiently.
- Add together bookmark
- #4
.
Those who have messed around with the Jandy
I decided to move i of the actuator'south end mechanisms so that when water is primarily returned via the pool cleaning organization, it likewise returned the minimum possible via the pool'south wall returns. I moved the appropriate Jandy actuator stop by only ONE notch to achieve this. I reran the unlike pump experiments and recorded the results. Here is where some subjectivity occurs: I as well dived in the pool to endeavour and approximate how much water was being returned via the pool's floor cleaning system versus the pool wall returns. For this experiment, I estimated about x%-xx% of the water came from the walls, and 80-90% via the cleaning organization. I didn't recollect this was going to make much difference. Hither are the results:
[the only way of really knowing if the menstruation rate out of the popups was really the aforementioned equally the previous case, is to make certain the PSI at the manifold is the same as the original case, and so my "estimates" about how much was going to each side were simply guesses. As information technology turns out, for this case,
| Pump Speed | RPM | Watts | GPM | Filter Pressure | Gallons/KWh | ||
| 100 | 3450 | 1707 | 56 | 33 | | 1968 | <max catamenia through modified "cleaning" organisation has increased to 56gpm from 50gpm |
| 95 | 3278 | 1502 | 55 | 27 | 2197 | ||
| 90 | 3105 | 1280 | 53 | 25 | 2484 | ||
| 85 | 2933 | 1065 | 50 | 24 | 2817 | ||
| eighty | 2760 | 903 | 49 | 21 | | 3256 | < puddle cleaning organization felt roughly equivalent hither |
| 75 | 2588 | 735 | 43 | 18.5 | 3510 | ||
| 70 | 2415 | 605 | forty | sixteen | 3967 |
At 80% max pump speed, there was an equivalent feel for the output of the in-flooring popular-ups that I had run for the by 3-iv years using ONLY the pool's cleaning organization . Information technology makes sense that at 49 GPM flow, and 80% return to the in-floor cleaning system, I got roughly the same 40 gallons blasting out of my pop-ups (49*.lxxx=40).
Now my cleaning organization was filtering a bit more than h2o (49 gallons versus the previous 40 gallons) AND the pump efficiency went upward slightly as well (3256 Gallons/kWh vs 2749 Gallons/kWh) . So I decided to take it one pace further.
- Add bookmark
- #5
.
I next moved the Jandy stop another notch over (2 notches total), so that even more water was returned via the puddle's wall returns. In my first post's picture you tin can run across this 3-way valve in the groundwork. 100% period to the cleaning system would require the lever on that valve to be horizontal. Instead, flow towards the pool'due south wall returns (and waterfall) is slightly open up.
I reran the tests and jumped into the pool to "feel" the furnishings on the cleaning system and wall returns. My cleaning system drives two larger pop-ups for most zones. In the puddle for this experiment, the flow coming from the wall returns felt equivalent to the flow coming from the agile cleaning organisation pop-ups…it was very, very close. I concluded that about 50% of the flow was going to the cleaning system and fifty% to the two wall returns. Here are the results:
[the only way of really knowing if the menstruum rate out of the popups was actually the same as the previous example, is to make sure the PSI at the manifold is the aforementioned as the original case, and then my "estimates" near how much was going to each side were simply guesses As it turns out, for the case I chose equivalence in feel, near 27 gpm were coming from the floor popups and 53 gpm were coming from the wall returns, roughly a 37%/63% ratio, I am not fixing any of the discussion that takes place based on my original assumption ]
Return via Pool Cleaning System (| Pump Speed | RPM | Watts | GPM | Filter Pressure | Gallons/KWh | ||
| 100 | 3450 | 2186 | 98 | 27 | | 2690 | <max flow through modified "cleaning" organisation has doubled to 98gpm from 50gpm |
| 95 | 3278 | 1878 | 95 | 24 | 3035 | ||
| 90 | 3105 | 1594 | 90 | 21.five | 3388 | ||
| 85 | 2933 | 1331 | 85 | 19.five | 3832 | ||
| eighty | 2760 | 1115 | 79 | 17.five | | 4251 | < pool cleaning organisation felt roughly equivalent here |
| 75 | 2588 | 910 | 72 | xv | 4747 |
WOW…big difference hither. At the indicate at which I judged the water blasting out of my pop-ups to exist equivavlent to how I had previously run (using only the cleaning organization returns), I was now getting 79 gallons run through the filter system per minute…one-half of information technology returning through the cleaning system (withal 40 GPM, 79*.50=40) and half of information technology through the two wall returns. And now…the wall returns felt like cleaning jets stirring up the water even more. I programme on directing these towards the floor now to help stir things up when I am using the in-floor cleaning system.
Even improve still, when cleaning, the ability efficiency just jumped all the way to 4250 gallons/kWh every bit compared to my initial 2749 gallons/kWh (50% more efficient). The filter pressure (and back pressure level against the pump) is likewise lower than my previous readings...you can't tell from the numbers I posted hither, but the filter pressure is not but lower, but more consistent as the cleaning system changes from zone to zone.
[Remember, the reason I gained in power efficiency is that I was previously running my organization very inefficiently and was wasting power by overdriving my popups]
- Add bookmark
- #6
And then after posting the previous mail service final night, I went to bed last night and started thinking…and thinking, and thinking. I adjusted 1 valve and doubled the effectiveness of my in-floor cleaning organisation AND too improved its ability efficiency by fifty%. [true, as compared to what I was running]
I got little sleep because I realized how much money I take probably wasted over the years because my cleaning organization, equally setup, was NOT as constructive as it could be and certainly inefficient (don't worry, I won't lose whatsoever more than sleep, haha, h2o under-the-bridge). The restricted flow through the cleaning arrangement was unnecessarily choking off the filtering system. [cleaning speed of the in-flooring cleaning system was merely 40gpm, resulting in longer cleaning times and less effectiveness]
For 20 years I had a single stage pump that I ran ten-12 hours a solar day (later on storms sometimes 24/vii for days on finish, or more when I forgot to turn it back, which was fairly often). I never even used my valve to render water to the pool wall returns because my thinking that it was always improve to clean the pool while running the pump.
What I never idea well-nigh was the combination of returning through the cleaning organization and pool wall returns every bit in the previous posts. Shasta pools (now A&A) built my pool and was the leading puddle builder in the US for many years in the 70s-90s, I am certain there are 1000s of pools in the Phoenix area and elsewhere that accept this similar issue. I hope that newer systems accept avoided this problem simply I don't have any data on that.
Is my thinking wrong hither? It seems right but I may take rushed to conclusions with all this exciting new information that I nerveless and threw out so quickly...haha.
- Add bookmark
- #7
I read this with interest since I have a flagman in-floor organization and simply purchased ii VS pentair pumps 6 months ago. The numbers are interesting, but the proof will be evident only if you are satisfied with the cleanliness of your pool after diverting half of your catamenia away from your pop-up heads. I've had my ain struggles with the in-floor system over the 24 years I've owned my pool. My final solution was to take two pumps. One for my spillover spa and one isolated just on my chief pool in-floor system. This seems to piece of work for me.
- Add bookmark
- #viii
Mitchell, thanks for the annotate...with the new settings, the data shows that I am getting roughly the Aforementioned catamenia to my cleaning heads (~40 gpm) and an additional 40gpm dorsum through the wall returns (note that at that place is a bit of subjectivity here based on my estimate of the flows from the cleaning heads vs the wall returns but it is very close). This results in a menstruation back through the filter of 80gpm and why I believe the filtering system will now filter twice as efficiently during cleaning.
And then, the new valve settings have not diverted any menstruum from my cleaning heads. The pool pump is finer supplying BOTH render paths with 40gpm. It takes more power to do that but is much more than efficient overall.
The affair I am not clear nearly, nonetheless, is if I am "double counting the benefits" of the filtering and the ability efficiency. Are they both the same?
you are right though, ultimately it will come down to my satisfaction with the cleaning and is why I am anxiously pending our next desert monsoon to really stress the arrangement, haha.
[the simply fashion of really knowing if the catamenia rate out of the popups was really the same every bit the previous example, is to make sure the PSI at the manifold is the same as before, so my "estimates" about how much was going to each side were just guesses As information technology turns out, for this example, almost 27 gpm were coming from the floor popups and 53 gpm were coming from the wall returns, roughly a 37%/63% ratio, I am not fixing whatsoever of the discussion that takes place based on my original supposition ]
- Add bookmark
- #9
Is your plan to run your pump continuously at your newly designated high efficiency level?
I've gone to running my pump for 2 hours at the rpm required to pop upwards my heads and fairly make clean my pool. I run the pump at very depression menstruum (1200rpm) the rest of the twenty-four hour period just to run my SWG and filter. My pool has never looked better and my electricity bill is down $120/month.
- Add bookmark
- #ten
Mitchell, the new plan is to run with the valve changes at 2760rpm-80% max ONLY during cleaning with my in-flooring system. Previously and currently that has been about 3 hours a day, I think this will be adjusted down with the new valve settings just I volition see how it works out.
The rest of the time (currently about 8 hours a day), I run with returns directed fully to the pool wall returns (100%) at very low RPM. Previous to today, I had been running the low rpm level at ~1000rpm-30%max, but based on my second post in this thread, that volition go to the more efficient ~1200rpm-35% max speed. The corporeality of time I run the pump at this level will probably exist adjusted downward too, tbd.
- Add bookmark
- #11
Jon very interesting findings, good job!
Now you have me wondering. Now that you lot have found the virtually efficient "sweet spot" to run your pump rpms at, now I'm curious to see Time information technology takes to clean the pool. Indeed a dust storm would give you lot the proper ammo to run that type of test.
Besides, if you point your return eyeballs downward, I would think you would be robbing the effectiveness of the "swirl" action needed to keep the skimmer fed. And to go a footstep farther. I would recollect that all that water movement would stir up droppings that has settled to the flooring, rather and then gently pushing it towards the main drains. 
I really like the rpm findings you have arrived at, and now I'd like to hear your findings on the cleaning ability. 
- - - Updated - - -
Double mail.
- Add bookmark
- #12
Also, if you point your return eyeballs down, I would think you would be robbing the effectiveness of the "swirl" action needed to proceed the skimmer fed. And to go a step further. I would retrieve that all that water movement would stir upwardly debris that has settled to the floor, rather then gently pushing information technology towards the main drains.
Rob, after using my cleaning sytem for the concluding 25 years, I can definitely conclude that at that place is NO rhyme or reason to how the debris gets pushed around on the floor by the pool cleaning heads...the key is to get it suspended in the water and go information technology to the filter as rapidly equally possible which my new valve adjustment allows it to do. Other systems may have the ability to direct the droppings menstruation but not mine (I practise remember claims by PC2000?? that it directed debris towards the drain, other systems could be similar). So I don't have an worries virtually that.
And until concluding week, I really had never tried (in 25 years) to optimize my side return flows to swirl the puddle water around to arrive go to the skimmer improve. I had never even thought about information technology until I read a thread last week that included some statements about doing information technology. I think I improved my catamenia...so yous are right, redirecting the pool side returns would impact that (since they would be permanently in that same position when I run at low RPM). So I will accept to think almost that. Thanks for pointing that out.
So you think we'll become some other monsoon storm this year?...I am hoping, haha. I want to effort out my "new" cleaning organization likewise.
- Add bookmark
- #13
So you call up we'll get another monsoon storm this year?...I am hoping, haha. I want to try out my "new" cleaning system as well.
According to my magic 8 ball, "all signs betoken to yes".
- Add bookmark
- #14
I'one thousand skeptical of judging the "feel" of water coming out of pop-ups and including that with the more scientific role of this (gpm, rpm, watts, pressure). In-floor systems are designed to run with loftier pressure level. If y'all have more plenty pressure at your in-floor valve to get max distance of h2o out of your pop-ups, then it may work to divert some water to your wall returns. Simply if your plumbing configuration has low force per unit area at your in-floor valve, you can't afford to divert or you will have dead spots everywhere.
Mitchellb said it well: "the proof will exist axiomatic only if y'all are satisfied with the cleanliness of your puddle."
- Add bookmark
- #15
Dodger, I hear you. Beingness an engineer, I am as well dissatisfied with the "feel" aspect of this experiment and wish I had a way to experimentally measure the outputs on the pop-ups and wall returns. Merely the term "divert" is not quite authentic with this experiment and here is why.
[There isn't a skillful way to measure the outputs on the popups in all cases, merely you can say that the output is roughly the same in ii dissimilar cases IF the manifold PSI in the manifold is the same for both cases. That'south why the PSI gauge on the manifold is and then of import. I did not have a PSI estimate nearly my manifold valve at the fourth dimension of this postal service, but later added 1]
Permit'south look at the 3 disquisitional information points for the cleaning system: ane each from the 3 cleaning arrangement experiments. In detail let'due south look at the eighty% max (2760 rpm) spot for the test cases. This is where I previously ran my cleaning organization and where I plan to run it with the new Jandy valve settings.
| Watts | GPM | Gallons/KWh | ||
| 100% Cleaning (Original Configuration) | 873 | 40 | 2749 | |
| Jandy 1 Notch (Exam 1, approx 85% cleaning, xv% wall) | 903 | 49 | 3256 | |
| Jandy two Notch (Terminal Configuration, approx 50% cleaning, 50% wall) | 1115 | 79 | 4251 |
By opening the Jandy valve slightly, water is not simply being diverted from the cleaning heads…the pump is actually pumping More water volume through the system (40gpm > 49gpm > 79gpm). The pump's wattage as well increase, which makes sense…because it is doing More work (moving more water). In the original configuration the pump was simply spinning much of the h2o around in the impellers and it was not going anywhere, it had nowhere to go because the cleaning system path was totally blocked off by the back-pressure.
Every bit far equally max throw distance for the pop-ups…truthfully when my pool was designed the pop-up placement was not fifty-fifty in the blueprint…the guys installing it did it on the fly. Pressures were not calculated, they used rules-of-thumb because Shasta built so many pools. I suspect it is done differently nowadays.
Clearly the new cleaning configuration is going to filter twice the corporeality of water in the same fourth dimension frame (79gpm vs xl gpm). Volition I develop new dead spots (I already have a couple where there are sometimes small collections of pebble type debris)…my guess after my scientific dives (haha) is no.
Just, I'll be sure to give some updates. Cheers for the comments.
- Add bookmark
- #16
Does your pump display GPM? My new Pentair pumps can be set up to a specific RPM or GPM. I wonder if this feature would help you if your pump has this option.
- Add bookmark
- #17
Mitchell, no my pump doesn't display gpm (at least to my knowledge) but the FlowVis has excellent specs and is supposed to be accurate within Xx.5%20 (if my memory serves me right...edit, apparently it did non, see below). It seems to me that a pump itself might non be able to calculate gpm accurately unless it has a menstruation meter on its input or output. Have you read anything about your pump'southward gpm accuracy? That'southward a really nice feature!
flowvis review here: https://www.troublefreepool.com/thr...eview?highlight=Flowvis&p=1377060#post1377060
From that review: "Accuracy is reported by the manufacturer as 'greater than 95%' and '>97.nine%"
- Add bookmark
- #18
Fluid mechanics was not a topic I studied, so I hesitate to try to engage on flow vs pressure. But, I can report anecdotally that when I modify my cleaner bypass valve from 100% open to anywhere below that, I get Aught force per unit area increase in my Caretaker valve. When I get to about 90% open on the bypass, the pressure in the Caretaker starts to drop. So, while the pump may work harder, or at that place may be more flow, it does not upshot in more than pressure level in my cleaner, which is what I am trying to achieve for proper cleaning (max throw from pop-ups.)
I may take missed this, but did you read an in-flooring valve pressure for each datapoint?
Some other question I take is about faster filtering or getting more water through the filter in a given amount of time. I may be misunderstanding what yous mean. There are many threads on here where the experts and mods debunk the idea of having to turn over a certain amount of water. And so what is the advantage of faster filtering?
- Add bookmark
- #19
Ditto for me.Fluid mechanics was not a topic I studied, so I hesitate to try to engage on flow vs pressure.
Just, I tin can written report anecdotally that when I alter my cleaner featherbed valve from 100% open to anywhere below that, I go ZERO pressure level increment in my Flagman valve. When I get to nearly 90% open up on the bypass, the pressure in the Caretaker starts to drop. So, while the pump may piece of work harder, or at that place may be more flow, it does not result in more pressure in my cleaner, which is what I am trying to achieve for proper cleaning (max throw from pop-ups.)
Deplorable, I don't understand this experiment probably because I accept no pressure valve on my cleaning system and I don't take a bypass either. The data I accept definitely shows a pressure subtract (at the filter) when I slightly open up the pool wall returns in parallel to the cleaning organisation...I would expect a respective pressure decrease to show upward in my cleaning arrangement distribution "dome" besides. The question is, has it dropped beneath the max throw point, etc that you are concerned about for my popups. I don't believe it has but your next question could provide an answer.
I didn't know this existed...exercise they sell pressure gauges for doing this (I take A&A type 1 popups). Would dear to try this because it would be "real" data rather than my "experience" haha.I may take missed this, but did you read an in-floor valve pressure level for each datapoint?
Some other question I have is about faster filtering or getting more water through the filter in a given corporeality of fourth dimension. I may be misunderstanding what you mean. At that place are many threads on here where the experts and mods debunk the idea of having to turn over a sure amount of water. And then what is the advantage of faster filtering?
Currently I run my cleaning system for near 3 hours a solar day (I must add that this is already overkill...ninety% of the time because there is usually not much droppings in my pool). When in that location is debris, information technology doesn't take that long to "kick upward" the droppings...it takes that long because the debris "kicked upwards" has to be filtered out of the water. When we have an AZ monsoon...three hours isn't nearly plenty to filter all the debris "kicked up" (especially at my erstwhile 40gpm filtering ability). Doubling the filter chapters while cleaning will make cleaning my pool much faster. Too, in general, the goal is to reduce the "cleaning fourth dimension" (high rpm run time) considering it costs more than "filtering fourth dimension" (low rpm run fourth dimension). I am certain the valve change will permit me to exercise this.
Where would I expect up those pressure gauges...if they are non too expensive I might become one. But would I need multiple meters to put on all of a detail zone's pop-ups simultaneously? Cheers.
- Add bookmark
- #xx
Sorry if I mislead you. The pressure gauge is not connected to the pop-ups, information technology's on the water control valve. For example, the judge on top of the valve in this flick.
Paramount half dozen Port Water Valve - 004-302-4184-03
I don't know that it is retrofittable for your valve assembly. If yours doesn't take one, I didn't know there were control valves out in that location without pressure gauges.
Edit: Just looked at your build thread and saw your equipment pad. Certain enough, I see no pressure gauge on the floor valve!
Like threads
- Welcome to TFP! For a wealth of pool care information please check out our free Pool School. If you are in need of specific help so nosotros encourage you to Register and inquire us hither in the forum!
Source: https://www.troublefreepool.com/threads/optimize-your-in-floor-cleaning-effectiveness-and-efficiency.171941/
Posted by: hatchhowely.blogspot.com
0 Response to "What Is The Gmp Needed For Pool Infloor Cleaning System"
Post a Comment