Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

vortex size

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • vortex size

    in brief will a 51ins height and 36ins width vortex, fed from two aerated bottom drains give me good settlement before the sequence 1/4 plus pumps to the bacci shower. If not , what is the minimum size of a vortex to work. Thankyou.
  • #2

    Simon,

    The size sounds fine, just about the norm, obvioulsy position in plan and elevation (level) of your input/s and out take will have a bearing.
    Andrew

    "Gentlemen prefer ponds"

    Comment

    • #3

      [QUOTE=Andrew]Simon,

      The size sounds fine, just about the norm, obvioulsy position in plan and elevation (level) of your input/s and out take will have a bearing.[/QUOTE

      Simon,

      Why do you don't go for a sieve like a bowd sieve. Small space and a big dirt collector.

      http://www.click2roark.com/cgi-win/w...20040812191120
      see the link for picture's

      ivar

      Comment

      • #4

        Simon

        Can you provide more details of complete set up you propose?

        Mark
        Mark Gardner

        Comment

        • #5

          It's not big enough. 2,000 gallons an hour is pushing it for 36" diameter. With a 1/4 plus you need to be looking at 48" or bigger.

          Just my view if you want good settlement.

          Maurice.
          http://www.koi-uk.co.uk

          Comment

          • #6

            vortex size

            the pond plan is 4000 gallons, two aerated bottom drains feeding 51ins height and 36ins width paragon plastics vortex with twin 4in or 3in inlet havent decided yet. I cant put a sieve on the pond as I am designing this pond for a friend and budget he has wont stretch for that. This is the first time I be installing a bacci shower, hence the reason for this post. Then the sequence 1/4 plus pump will feed the bacci shower. Returning by a weir along side a tpr from the skimmer, turning over roughly 5200 gallons an hour with both pumps.A 4kw heater, 55w tmc uv and 2 airtech 40 complete the pond set up. Thanks for the replys so far but now have conflicting advice, I know bigger is best, but in this case space is really restricted. What size vortexs are you guys using out there with bacci showers.

            Comment

            • #7

              Simon

              Does the design have one or 2 bakki showers? I'm guessing 2 or a double sized unit?

              I would look at having some solids removal on each bottom drain independently.

              Have a look at what Maurice has done with static kaldnes in 2ft vortexes at http://www.koi-uk.co.uk/mechanical_f...capable_of.htm . You could have one of these units on each drain line and then pump to the showers.

              I presently run a 2ft 'vortex' with a vertical sheet of fine matala matting to stop solids prior to 2ft chamber of submerged BHM and a 3tier bakki shower.

              This gives excellent quality water and simple maintenance.

              Mark
              Mark Gardner

              Comment

              • #8

                Mark
                I thought the bacci shower( One unit, 4 trays with 60 kilo of bhm) would handle 4000gallons. Again space issue, we only wanted to use one vortex, from both drains.I think the cut matala is a good way of improving settlement. All I want to do is to stop the wirlpool effect in the vortex, if it happens because of the flow rate and keep the settlement to the floor of the vortex and not in continuous suspension. Just a thought has anyone tried using hydrocleans before the shower unit.

                Comment

                • #9

                  Simon

                  I think that would be pushing it to be honest, with settlement you'd be looking at 3000 max i would think.

                  Also, if I understand correctly, only half the turnover is going over the shower, the other pump is just running the skimmer so not really turnover, just water movement.

                  To be perfectly honest I think the design is incorrect and needs to be reviewed.

                  Mark
                  Mark Gardner

                  Comment

                  • #10

                    Was surprised that no one commented about the two bottom drains into one
                    line and then both into the settling chamber.

                    judging from the comments made back on the help from others (space, economics etc) my suggestion will go no where but for "i told you so purposes"

                    I do not reccomend that one line carry two drains. should be a line a drain,
                    otherwise the heavies accumulate in the line over time.
                    Dick Benbow

                    Comment

                    • #11

                      Dick

                      I mentioned it, but maybe not too clearly:

                      'I would look at having some solids removal on each bottom drain independently.'

                      Mark
                      Mark Gardner

                      Comment

                      • #12

                        Simon,

                        If you don't want water rotation with-in the chamber, as with answer units, then fit a 90 degree internal elbow, direct the water vertically, and I'd suggest upwards away from where gravity has the S, H one T, setteling out.
                        Andrew

                        "Gentlemen prefer ponds"

                        Comment

                        • #13

                          I made the mistake of building (from scratch) a 5 foot diameter x 3 foot deep vortex for 3600 gph. It was an expensive and pain-staking project which was a complete waste of time. Nothing could settle out in that whirlpool and all the leaves ended up in the little pump trap which had to be emptied daily. I threw 100 square feet of 1/2 inch woven predator netting into the vortex to slow the flow and trap debris, but the debris does not fall to the bottom of the cone bottom so it is a pain to clean. Should have made it 8 foot diameter.


                          steve hopkins

                          Comment

                          • #14

                            OK her just my to pence and small brain

                            I see some comment on stopping the whirlpool effect. As far as I know this effect is just a mean to keep retention contact time in settlement high.

                            At the normal “low” speed we have in normal pond construction should not give anything like industrial vortex separation. Industrial separation is easily to design but to my knowledge comes out for non-commercial standards “VERY” expensive in power consumption pr passing unit.



                            Have always figured that the settlement in vortex was due to the old speed principle. It will badly translated read something like this:

                            Speed at vortex wall 0.0-speed at centre off whirl given by pump and diameter off vortex – speeds at in and outlet (centre top off unit) given by pump and pipe diameter.



                            All particles with higher density than water will fall if given an opportunity. The speed will drop accordingly to diameter and goes for the speed off wall the nearer you get. In the “film” closes to the wall it’s in principle equal too zero. This film will let particles fall to the lowest part off the unit.



                            Objects placed in this scenario only gives me thoughts off turbulence and no real peace off mind or settlements. I have always placed this kind off fine practical settlement outside (read after) the “vortex” unit.





                            Please feel very free to comment, harass or enlighten me.





                            PS Dear BB

                            Not always as you comment. The countermove is adjustable restrictions (with option to close on purge) on each feed. Measuring and adjusting too the flow pattern needed. Purging each line separately as it was a single line.

                            The pro is level off awareness and control and the possibility to automate the system. Con as always cost and need off commitment.
                            Tone - Truls -Petter
                            Vogata NI

                            Comment

                            • #15

                              Here is my GUESS at how particles seem to move towards the center of a gyre in defiance of centrifugal force. My vision is that there is some random motion as particles are moved along by the circular motion. When this random motion moves them towards the center, the particles become "trapped" by the velocity gradient (zero at center to maximum at perimeter). The trapping is related to a relative reduction in the random motion at a lower velocity.

                              I also wonder if there is another factor at work. As a particle is pushed along by the circular water current, could the difference in the pressure exerted on the side of the particle facing towards the perimeter where the velocity if higher be greater than the force applied to the side of the particle facing towards the center of the gyre where the velocity if lower? If so, then there would be a net force pushing the particle towards the center.

                              I have never been able to find any information on this subject and do not know if I am correect in this thinking. Vogata, you seem to have an engineering background. Have you ever seen an explaination of how solids are moved towards and are concentrated at the center of a gyre? Is there a name for this?

                              Thanks,
                              steve hopkins

                              Comment

                              All content and images copyright of: Koi-bito.com
                              Working...
                              X