Re: FlowVis for In-floor Cleaning System Tuning
So I am back for a bit this morning.
I have to admit...when I was working at Intel, it was FUN to work on challenges. I'd wake up in the middle of the night and start thinking about issues/solutions, never go back to sleep, go into work, and not think twice about it.
I am retired and I still have FUN working on challenges, but now I wake,
start thinking about issues/solutions, never go back to sleep, and am confused and exhausted throughout the rest of the day, haha.
That was me the other day...the Theory I posted had some issues (that's the issue with typing things on the fly)...most importantly, it did not really address my main reason for doing this...
I want my cleaning system to be more effective (I want it to clean faster). Once again, the entire time I was bantering with Mark, I was thinking that my "effectiveness" claim is what I was defending...but in fact, I was once again defending my "energy efficiency" claims which I still hope to prove. Both those words should NOT begin with "e". I truly was exhausted that day.
A lot of other things have been going through my head this week...I think there are some ideas that could be patented, if they aren't already. Now that I let the "cat out of the bag" as to what I am really thinking, I have decided to release the full spectrum of my thought process. Releasing these ideas into the Public Domain frees anyone to use them, and prevents patents from being issued for them. Like I said, there may already be patents on these but I am not interested in pursuing any if there aren't.
So the following post enters my thoughts on this method into the Public Domain. Not all claims have to be proven to do this, in particular the "efficiency" one (haha).
- - - Updated - - -
Method to Increase Effectiveness and Efficiency of a Pool’s In-Floor Cleaning System
THIS CURRENTLY CONTAINS MANY INACCURACIES that must be cleaned up. It is a work in progress. In particular, any energy efficient improvement claims for single pump systems are NOT possible UNLESS your system is running, or being designed to run, inefficiently (probably the case for 90% of the systems out there). In-floor cleaning systems CAN be designed to run more effectively (faster cleaning) as described in this section.
I wanted to get these ideas out into the Public Domain. Individuals and/or companies are free to use this information as they please. If there are already existing patents on any of these ideas, then of course those would restrict the right to use this information. If there are no patents on these ideas, then this effectively prevents new patents from being issued for these ideas.
Background
Most in-floor swimming pool cleaning systems rely on an approach implementing a set of popups that systematically and sequentially shoot high pressure water across zones of the pool floor to move and/or suspend debris and particles in the water so the filter and skimmers can remove the debris and particles out of the pool water. This is a system that is energy inefficient due to the PSI requirements for the popups. In addition, current in-floor cleaning systems have a built-in limitation that reduces their effectiveness.
The limitation in these systems that reduces their
effectiveness is that they restrict the flow
into the skimmers/drains (and eventually to the filter) by constricting the flow
out via the high-pressure popups (IN=OUT in all these systems). Because the flow of water being filtered is restricted, it requires increased run time for cleaning system operation. The ultimately
effective in-floor cleaning system would be one that cycled the floor popups once, and then cycled all the pool water through the filtering system right afterward - Instant clean. That is obviously not possible. But this goal remains: increase the flow of water through the filter while the popups are running to increase
effectiveness. In a well-designed system, a user should have the option to use the system’s maximum GPM capacity to effectively run the cleaning system.
The method proposed here will increase the
effectiveness of an in-floor cleaning system AND, depending on its specific implementation, also increase its energy
efficiency.
It has been approximately 50 years since in-floor cleaning systems have been in use. Although there have been many design changes to increase effectiveness and efficiency throughout the years, this proposed method does not seem to be one of them.
Definitions, quickly thrown in here, will be refined later:
oPSI = optimal PSI for manifold pressure to run most energy efficient
cGPM = cleaning GPM, total of flow through the popups at oPSI + flow through other parallel paths.
Additions for future (talked about elsewhere in thread, later posts than this)
- adding "swirl" to in-floor cleaning by increasing cGPM and using to create movement of water "around" the pool wall to avoid dead spots as described elsewhere. This is done through wall returns or other specialized pool returns. Maximizing pool swirl through special implementation would increase cleaning "effectiveness"
Method Proposal
The introduction of a “parallel path” in the cleaning system’s water flow allows the high-pressure water flow of the popups to be supplemented by a lower pressure water flow. This increases the total flow through the system (“cleaning GPM”). This improves the
effectiveness as more water is filtered while the in-floor popups are running. The system can be run for a shorter time to effect the same amount of cleaning.
The energy
efficiency of the cleaning system may be improved by averaging down the cost of moving (pumping) water through the system (GPM/kWh). Water “shot out” through the cleaning system popups to “move the debris/particles” in the pool is HIGH COST WATER (it takes a lot of energy to get this water into the pool). Additional water introduced to the pool via the parallel path (such as wall returns) and eventually back to the filter is LOWER COST WATER (not nearly as much energy to introduce this into the pool).
These are the specifications for implementation
For a single pump implementation of this method:
- A “parallel path” for the water flow through the system must be created. In a single pump system this is defined as a partially shared water flow path from the drains/skimmers, through the filter, and back to the pool. The “shared portions” of this path would include drain/skimmer piping to the pump, the connection between the pump and filter, and the filter itself. The “high PSI” return path that between the valve manifold and the in-floor popups cannot be shared. A “lower PSI” return path located somewhere between the filter and back to the pool cannot be shared. Paths through heaters, chlorinators, other pool equipment may or may not be shared.
- To run the in-floor cleaning system, the “high PSI” and “lower PSI” pool returns must be activated simultaneously through an implementation of valves or equipment that may include: automated means, manually operated means, and/or simply defined and hard-wired into the system. The sum of the flow through the “high PSI” path and “lower PSI path” is called the “cleaning GPM”.
- The system may or may not include flow meters and PSI meters at appropriate spots (or a means to temporarily attach them) which may be used to help measure and/or optimize cleaning system effectiveness and efficiency.
- The “lower PSI” path can be implemented through: pool wall/bottom/surface returns, aerators, water feature returns, returns through specialized jets that could direct debris towards the drain and/or “sweep” material off shelves/seats, returns to venturi skimmers, returns to a spa, or any combination of those.
- Systems must maintain the PSI requirements for the valve manifold and should optimally locate the valve manifold to accomplish this. For many systems this would be close to the filter output.
- Effectiveness directly correlates to “cleaning GPM”. The higher the “cleaning GPM”, the more effective the cleaning system. The implementation to achieve a targeted “cleaning GPM” must comprehend appropriate sizing for the pump, filter, piping and the specific requirements for the in-floor equipment (manifold/popups/etc)
- Determining the process to operate the cleaning system more/most efficiently is currently being defined.
For a 2-pump implementation of this method here is what would need to be implemented…(this is rougher but I want to lay it out so it is in the Public Domain immediately)
- A parallel path is introduced into the pool’s cleaning system via two completely independent flow paths
- One path looks like a traditional pool flow path including pump “filter pump”, filter, drains, skimmers, heaters, etc
- One pump “cleaning pump” would be used to drive the in-floor cleaning system (manifold, popups, and/or other specialized cleaning jets, nozzles, and/or popups that direct debris towards the drain and/or “sweep” material off shelves/seats, etc). This path may or may not contain filters/skimmers/venturi skimmers. This pump may or may not be “shared” with a spa or as a pump for water features.
- Both pumps can be optimized (effectiveness and/or efficiency) for their use model (sizing, operating RPMs).
- The “cleaning pump” could be operated with specialized features such as: the ability to cycle on and off during the cleaning process so that it can suspend material in the water for the filtering system to filter out. This would be a higher efficiency use model than a 1 pump solution.
For a booster pump implementation:
- A parallel path is introduced into the pool’s cleaning system.
- One path looks like a traditional pool flow path including pump “filter pump”, filter, drains, skimmers, heaters, etc. This is the “low psi” path. The other path is a “high psi” path that would start somewhere after the output of the “filter pump”, into the “booster pump”, continue to the valve manifold, and then to the pool popups.
- The “booster pump” would be used to drive the in-floor cleaning system (manifold, popups, and/or other specialized cleaning jets or nozzles that direct debris towards the drain and/or “sweep” material off shelves/seats, etc). This path may or may not contain filters/skimmers/venturi skimmers. This pump may or may not be “shared” with a spa, or as a pump for water features.
- Both pumps can be optimized (effectiveness and/or efficiency) for their use model (sizing, operating RPMs).
- The “booster pump” could be operated with specialized features such as: the ability to cycle on and off during the cleaning process so that it can suspend material in the water for the filtering system to filter out. This would be a higher efficiency use model than a 1 pump solution.
- (b), (c), (d), (f), (g) of the single pump implementation apply
For a very simple implementation:
- A parallel path is introduced inside the in-floor cleaning system itself, between the manifold and the cleaning heads. This can be accomplished by
- Opening two zones (or more) simultaneously by modifying the manifold mechanism that selects each zone (this would actually be defined as two “high psi” return paths). The manifold PSI requirements would still need to be met for the popups to function as intended. A system may or may not be able to support this; it would probably have to be designed for this. “Cleaning GPM” double and thus increase system effectiveness. [this method would increase cGPM only]
- Increasing the "simultaneous partial ON” time of two adjacent zones by modifying the manifold mechanism that selects each zone. This increases average “cleaning GPM” which increases effectiveness. It also implements a pulse type mechanism into the cleaning system (push debris, filter, push debris, filter). This would be more effective and efficient than existing systems (if the popups still disturb/push the material sufficiently). Manifold PSI requirements in this case should not change [Here's how this works: short full-on pulse time, longer "low cost" filter at higher volume/suction time while rotating to next zone, repeat...but do this as quickly as possible to keep material shifting around. This method would increase cGPM and the energy efficiency and effectiveness of the system]
Some current manifolds support slowing the zone selection mechanism…this is the simplest way to implement a version of this method to improve effectiveness and efficiency for those existing systems. [This last portion is wrong because not only does the "simultaneous partial on-time" increase, but the "fully on-time" for each popup increases as well. Proportionally it's a wash. A change to the manifold mechanism is required]
- Very slightly opening up one or more (probably ALL) of the other zones to increase the flow through the system by modifying the manifold mechanism that selects each zone. In this case, the “cleaning GPM” could be increased significantly. The manifold PSI requirements would still need to be met for the popups to function as intended. [this method would increase cGPM only]
- A variation of (2). Speed up manifold rotation so that more average time is spent in the "simultaneous partial ON” time of two adjacent zones, the most efficient time to filter water in the system. Once again, this is a pulse mechanism (pulse, filter, repeat). Existing systems should take advantage of this by running their rotation as fast as possible. This increases average cGPM and increases energy efficiency.
