• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cocky
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Drunk
  • Embarrased
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Godly
  • Happy
  • Hateful
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
    Results 21 to 40 of 57

    Thread: Airlift Manifold Testing Station

    1. #21
      Spaun is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Apr 2010
      Location
      Mi.
      Posts
      854
      Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
      The bad thing about having a testing and open discussion thread about airlifts in a vendor section organized under a business is that if this trend continues like content will scattered all over the place. This is not how you effectively manage a database.
      Lets stay on topic.Please.I would also like to thank Zac for doing this testing and breaking everything down ie different parts of the airlifts, Im not very familiar with this technology but very interested.
      Last edited by Spaun; 01-23-2014 at 08:44 AM.
      Click for Southgate, Michigan Forecast

    2. #22
      BWG is offline Senior Member
      is 999875421235621456478541.1
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      ZONE 5
      Posts
      3,514
      The effect of the sanitary (sweep) Tee vs the straight Tee will be less pronounced in a open tank test with no attachment to the intake. When a Tee manifold is hooked up to plumbing such as coming from a pond or filter tank it will develop flow that is more linear (possibly laminar depending on pipe length) and enter the manifold differently. This is when the sweep version might have a noticeable advantage. Maybe a small difference will show up here that will be magnified when hooked up to a pipe.

      It will be interesting to find out.
      Last edited by BWG; 01-23-2014 at 12:42 AM.

    3. #23
      Zac Penn is offline Supporting Member
      is the owner of Deepwater Koi
      Innovations
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      5,089
      My opinion on the DWV vs Sch 40 TEE is that the DWV will perform worse than the Sch 40 due to the air injection disk being lower than the bottom of the intake. This will be much more pronounced in the 4" version because it has the greatest difference between Sch 40 and DWV. We will see!
      Zac Penn.... Please sign-up for our MAILING LIST HERE
      904-288-6199
      Zac@DeepwaterKoi.com
      www.DeepwaterKoi.com


    4. #24
      powerman's Avatar
      powerman is offline Supporting Member
      is Still koi keeping
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Dec 2006
      Location
      anacortes washington
      Posts
      4,324
      Quote Originally Posted by Zac Penn View Post
      Hey Dan,
      I am glad you have joined us down here. The 4" return pipe (upper pipe) is at I think 33" OC from the bottom so that I can gradually lower the entire airlift/collection chamber down into the tower to simulate lower submergences. It would be too difficult to keep the collection chamber static at the top, and suspend the airlift manifolds above the bottom. They would try to move around and once they got in front of the 3" pipe the incoming water would create turbulence and effect the performance of the airlift manifold. I hope that made sense, but I think you will see once i start up the testing.

      I edited the earlier "Reserved" post to show all of the details about the Deepwater Koi manifolds that will be tested. I will provide as much detail about the manifolds themselves, but I will not provide anymore detail about the injection disks.

      Based on the measurements provided in those pictures we should be able to come to a consensus on how the testing should be performed so that all things being equal we can compare the performance of each design.

      Ok, makes sense. I'm interested in the comparisons of the efficiency of the different designs .. I know from the little testing that I've done on the pressure chamber style one that the size and number of the air holes makes quite a difference. My new pond is going to utilize air lifts for two things. One is that my raceway will have three three inch returns that are below surface and the raceway is six feet deep so I'll have plenty of submergence to work with... so I'll be making three air lifts for that end of the raceway... I've built a pressure chamber style air lift now and I'm already happy with the gallons per hour that I can move with it. I've tried various configurations of holes in the pressure chamber. .8mm holes have worked the best so far and I can move at least 3600 gph with a 40 lpm air pump hooked to it. hard to measure since I didn't build a testing station and merely lowered the air lift into my pond and held it just above the surface so I could time the filling of a five gallon bucket. Even if I don't improve on this design, I'll be able to move over 10,000 gph through the raceway for somewhere around 120 watts. At the settlement end of the raceway, I'll also be using an airlift on a timer to empty the sump from the radial flow separator. this one will only come on for a minute or less every couple of hours, I'll have to figure that out as I go

      The first air lift I ever made was just a six inch air stone in a four inch pipe fed with a 40 lpm air pump and my header pond was five feet deep ... I was working on a counter current foam fractionator and it doubled as an airlift...not only did it work as a really good foam fractionator but it lifted the water about eight inches above water level and moved an impressive amount of gph... I think air lifts can be as simple as that, an air stone in a pipe , or as complicated as specially built manifolds to improve efficiency but either way if a pond is designed to use air lifts you can circulate a lot of water at a lower electrical cost than you can with regular water pumps.

      looking forward to your results
      DAN







    5. #25
      Zac Penn is offline Supporting Member
      is the owner of Deepwater Koi
      Innovations
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      5,089
      I have updated the very first post and added the air back-pressure readings and a picture of the air manifold being used. Please go back to the top and view the results. After I measured the baseline back-pressure readings caused by the air manifold, fittings and tubing, I connected the Deepwater Air Injection Disk to the air manifold and all the pressure results remained unchanged. I tested at all flow rates and the results remained the same.
      Zac Penn.... Please sign-up for our MAILING LIST HERE
      904-288-6199
      Zac@DeepwaterKoi.com
      www.DeepwaterKoi.com


    6. #26
      Zac Penn is offline Supporting Member
      is the owner of Deepwater Koi
      Innovations
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      5,089
      Quote Originally Posted by powerman View Post
      Ok, makes sense. I'm interested in the comparisons of the efficiency of the different designs .. I know from the little testing that I've done on the pressure chamber style one that the size and number of the air holes makes quite a difference. My new pond is going to utilize air lifts for two things. One is that my raceway will have three three inch returns that are below surface and the raceway is six feet deep so I'll have plenty of submergence to work with... so I'll be making three air lifts for that end of the raceway... I've built a pressure chamber style air lift now and I'm already happy with the gallons per hour that I can move with it. I've tried various configurations of holes in the pressure chamber. .8mm holes have worked the best so far and I can move at least 3600 gph with a 40 lpm air pump hooked to it. hard to measure since I didn't build a testing station and merely lowered the air lift into my pond and held it just above the surface so I could time the filling of a five gallon bucket. Even if I don't improve on this design, I'll be able to move over 10,000 gph through the raceway for somewhere around 120 watts. At the settlement end of the raceway, I'll also be using an airlift on a timer to empty the sump from the radial flow separator. this one will only come on for a minute or less every couple of hours, I'll have to figure that out as I go

      The first air lift I ever made was just a six inch air stone in a four inch pipe fed with a 40 lpm air pump and my header pond was five feet deep ... I was working on a counter current foam fractionator and it doubled as an airlift...not only did it work as a really good foam fractionator but it lifted the water about eight inches above water level and moved an impressive amount of gph... I think air lifts can be as simple as that, an air stone in a pipe , or as complicated as specially built manifolds to improve efficiency but either way if a pond is designed to use air lifts you can circulate a lot of water at a lower electrical cost than you can with regular water pumps.

      looking forward to your results
      Yes the number, size and spacing of the holes makes all the difference. Too large/small and you lose water flow. Too close/far apart and you lose water flow.

      When I start testing other airlift manifolds I am going to use the same sized hole and spacing as I am using in my injection disks, so that the air bubble size remains the same, and we can see what a difference the distribution of the air bubbles makes. If the masses want me to, I will use a different sized hole and spacing to match whatever manifold I am comparing.
      Zac Penn.... Please sign-up for our MAILING LIST HERE
      904-288-6199
      Zac@DeepwaterKoi.com
      www.DeepwaterKoi.com


    7. #27
      BWG is offline Senior Member
      is 999875421235621456478541.1
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      ZONE 5
      Posts
      3,514
      Quote Originally Posted by powerman View Post
      Ok, makes sense. I'm interested in the comparisons of the efficiency of the different designs .. I know from the little testing that I've done on the pressure chamber style one that the size and number of the air holes makes quite a difference. My new pond is going to utilize air lifts for two things. One is that my raceway will have three three inch returns that are below surface and the raceway is six feet deep so I'll have plenty of submergence to work with... so I'll be making three air lifts for that end of the raceway... I've built a pressure chamber style air lift now and I'm already happy with the gallons per hour that I can move with it. I've tried various configurations of holes in the pressure chamber. .8mm holes have worked the best so far and I can move at least 3600 gph with a 40 lpm air pump hooked to it. hard to measure since I didn't build a testing station and merely lowered the air lift into my pond and held it just above the surface so I could time the filling of a five gallon bucket. Even if I don't improve on this design, I'll be able to move over 10,000 gph through the raceway for somewhere around 120 watts. At the settlement end of the raceway, I'll also be using an airlift on a timer to empty the sump from the radial flow separator. this one will only come on for a minute or less every couple of hours, I'll have to figure that out as I go

      The first air lift I ever made was just a six inch air stone in a four inch pipe fed with a 40 lpm air pump and my header pond was five feet deep ... I was working on a counter current foam fractionator and it doubled as an airlift...not only did it work as a really good foam fractionator but it lifted the water about eight inches above water level and moved an impressive amount of gph... I think air lifts can be as simple as that, an air stone in a pipe , or as complicated as specially built manifolds to improve efficiency but either way if a pond is designed to use air lifts you can circulate a lot of water at a lower electrical cost than you can with regular water pumps.

      looking forward to your results
      The Koivrienden company is claiming to move the same amount of water with 1/2 of the air and only use 10-13 watts. (per lift)

      Are you measuring the output correctly? These tests will be interesting to see if Koivrienden results are accurate.
      Last edited by BWG; 01-23-2014 at 01:04 PM.

    8. #28
      Zac Penn is offline Supporting Member
      is the owner of Deepwater Koi
      Innovations
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      5,089
      Okay this is a little teaser, because I just couldn't help myself from pushing it

      Funnel Airlift Manifold, 66" submergence, 45 LPM air supply, 10" lift
      Name:  20140123_131240.jpg
Views: 966
Size:  72.6 KB
      Name:  10 lift.jpg
Views: 1124
Size:  68.9 KB
      Name:  66 sub 10 lift.jpg
Views: 1102
Size:  58.3 KB
      Name:  66 sub 10 lift 35gpm.jpg
Views: 972
Size:  60.3 KB


      Funnel Airlift Manifold, 66" submergence, 45 LPM air supply, 5" lift
      Name:  66 sub 5 lift.jpg
Views: 955
Size:  77.8 KB
      Name:  66 sub 5 lift 56 gpm.jpg
Views: 944
Size:  61.4 KB


      As you can see there is still a good bit of the smokey flavoring in the water HAHAHAHA
      Zac Penn.... Please sign-up for our MAILING LIST HERE
      904-288-6199
      Zac@DeepwaterKoi.com
      www.DeepwaterKoi.com


    9. #29
      BWG is offline Senior Member
      is 999875421235621456478541.1
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      ZONE 5
      Posts
      3,514
      Looks like you are getting your barrels cleaned!

    10. #30
      mplskoi is offline Supporting Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2013
      Location
      Minneapolis
      Posts
      1,450
      Zac,
      I looked up what your results should have been getting according to your airlift calculator. In your 5 inch lift you are right on the numbers- expected was 56.2 GPM, results were 56.6.
      On your 10 inch lift expected was 24.8 GPM, you actually got 35.2! Almost 150% of expected.
      Impressive that your (calculator) numbers don't exaggerate possibilities, and in one case are dead on. BUt why the missed prediction in the 10" test?

      Keep up the great work!

    11. #31
      Zac Penn is offline Supporting Member
      is the owner of Deepwater Koi
      Innovations
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      5,089
      Quote Originally Posted by mplskoi View Post
      Zac,
      I looked up what your results should have been getting according to your airlift calculator. In your 5 inch lift you are right on the numbers- expected was 56.2 GPM, results were 56.6.
      On your 10 inch lift expected was 24.8 GPM, you actually got 35.2! Almost 150% of expected.
      Impressive that your (calculator) numbers don't exaggerate possibilities, and in one case are dead on. BUt why the missed prediction in the 10" test?

      Keep up the great work!
      The reason it was so far off is my calculator was only created on data from 0" to 5" of lift height. The formula creator that was used must need more data for the high lift numbers to create a more accurate formula.

      Really I only jumped to the 10" lift because of the "Water Wheel" airlift on the Dutch forums. He was using I think 25 CM as a lift height and I wanted to see what I could max out my testing station with. 66" submergence is the greatest I can achieve right now.
      Zac Penn.... Please sign-up for our MAILING LIST HERE
      904-288-6199
      Zac@DeepwaterKoi.com
      www.DeepwaterKoi.com


    12. #32
      BWG is offline Senior Member
      is 999875421235621456478541.1
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      ZONE 5
      Posts
      3,514
      The previous test station lacked the correct meter required input and output straight pipe length as specified by the meter manufacture to be accurate. There also could have been air in the metered water due to how it was constructed and this is also a no-no. These numbers are going to be more accurate than any posted before. Shouldn't even be compared.

      This isn't opinion but information published by the meter manufacture. Don't want to sound negative just want to state the facts. Any metering system also restricts flow and slightly decreases actual possible output. If you want minimal metering resistance use the minimum straight piece of pipe as specified by the meter manufacture and use uniseals to connect to the pipe between barrels. One single pipe section with no butt connections, Ferncos or internal fittings.
      Last edited by BWG; 01-23-2014 at 05:12 PM.

    13. #33
      tsippel is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Dec 2013
      Location
      pittsburgh pa
      Posts
      838
      what is the watts used on your amp meter.
      to get that flow

    14. #34
      Zac Penn is offline Supporting Member
      is the owner of Deepwater Koi
      Innovations
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      5,089
      Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
      The previous test station lacked the correct meter required input and output straight pipe length as specified by the meter manufacture to be accurate. There also could have been air in the metered water due to how it was constructed and this is also a no-no. These numbers are going to be more accurate than any posted before. Shouldn't even be compared.

      This isn't opinion but information published by the meter manufacture. Don't want to sound negative just want to state the facts. Any metering system also restricts flow and slightly decreases actual possible output. If you want minimal metering resistance use the minimum straight piece of pipe as specified by the meter manufacture and use uniseals to connect to the pipe between barrels. One single pipe section with no butt connections, Ferncos or internal fittings.
      It might be a little too early to jump directly to that conclusion, but I think you are partly correct. The meter wasn't spaced properly but the results are very close in some cases, but can be pretty far off as well. One thing to be mindful of swell is the kind of manifold that was tested with the calculator. It was a TEE manifold and not the Funnel. Granted the Funnel is supposed to be more efficient but it could be one reason. We need to wait for more data to come back.

      Quote Originally Posted by tsippel View Post
      what is the watts used on your amp meter.
      to get that flow
      Well that is where things get messed up A Hakko 40L cannot produce enough air flow at 66" of submergence to perform these tests. I had to switch back to a Hakko 100L in order to get up to 45 LPM at that depth.

      When we get down to lower submergences I will be able to drop back to to the Hakko 40L and get some WATTS readings.

      I Just went through my first batch of testing and some things to note...
      Air Supply Back-Pressure does not change based on lift height. I checked the air pressure gauge at every data point and all of the pressures at a specific air supply was the same no matter what the lift height was. The only thing that matters is water depth, injection disk and tubing restrictions. All of those numbers are outlined in the beginning of this thread so just add the water depth into the mix and you will have a total air pressure based on the amount of flow being supplied.

      Next thing to note is the low lift heights are going to cause problems at high flow rates. The 4" return pipe is causing too much restriction and it is backing up the water level in the collection chamber and it can artificially increase the lift height. Example... 66" submergence, 3" lift, 45 LPM = 56 GPM.... Replacing the 3" lift pipe with the 2" pipe doesn't actually lower the lift height because the water in the collection chamber is still 3" above the dynamic water level due to the 4" pipe restriction. So if the chart is blank then it means i cannot get accurate results due to the flow being too low or lift being too high.
      Zac Penn.... Please sign-up for our MAILING LIST HERE
      904-288-6199
      Zac@DeepwaterKoi.com
      www.DeepwaterKoi.com


    15. #35
      BWG is offline Senior Member
      is 999875421235621456478541.1
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      ZONE 5
      Posts
      3,514
      The AquaZen people use a water air separator on their outputs (two types) and claim it increases flow on a straight vertical output such as this. I have no idea if there is science to this but thought I would mention it.

      Didn't you publish some Hakko flow, watts, and pressure information before?
      Last edited by BWG; 01-23-2014 at 07:20 PM.

    16. #36
      h3nry is offline Junior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Nov 2010
      Location
      CA
      Posts
      28
      Zac,
      How's this airlift manifold compare to the one I bought from you about 1 yr ago?
      Are they the same ones?

    17. #37
      Spaun is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Apr 2010
      Location
      Mi.
      Posts
      854
      Does the collector box just keep water from going everywhere and return it to the other barrel or "drum"?
      Click for Southgate, Michigan Forecast

    18. #38
      Zac Penn is offline Supporting Member
      is the owner of Deepwater Koi
      Innovations
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      5,089
      Quote Originally Posted by h3nry View Post
      Zac,
      How's this airlift manifold compare to the one I bought from you about 1 yr ago?
      Are they the same ones?
      Yours is the exact same injection disk, and I believe you have the 4" x 4" x 4" DWV Tee manifold if I remember correctly. I am running that manifold through the test station right now and will post the data results in a couple days when i finish testing.

      Quote Originally Posted by Spaun View Post
      Does the collector box just keep water from going everywhere and return it to the other barrel or "drum"?
      Yes exactly. It is 12" x 16" x 12" deep and it just collects the airlift output water and directs it down to the 4" pipe which returns to the left barrel.
      Zac Penn.... Please sign-up for our MAILING LIST HERE
      904-288-6199
      Zac@DeepwaterKoi.com
      www.DeepwaterKoi.com


    19. #39
      Zac Penn is offline Supporting Member
      is the owner of Deepwater Koi
      Innovations
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      5,089
      Sorry for the delay guys, but I am finalizing the filtration system for the Orlando koi show next month. Once I get it finished i will have some more time to test manifolds.

      Zac
      Zac Penn.... Please sign-up for our MAILING LIST HERE
      904-288-6199
      Zac@DeepwaterKoi.com
      www.DeepwaterKoi.com


    20. #40
      dharlow's Avatar
      dharlow is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2013
      Location
      Ala
      Posts
      214
      Quote Originally Posted by Zac Penn View Post
      Sorry for the delay guys, but I am finalizing the filtration system for the Orlando koi show next month. Once I get it finished i will have some more time to test manifolds.

      Zac
      How was the show Zac?

      Have you had any time to further your experiments on this project?
      Last edited by dharlow; 03-16-2014 at 10:43 AM.
      Practicing Pescetarian

    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •