Edits to the EStaRS Filter File

[juanchon998]

Hey Clare, I'm going to use this issue/comment to write down changes that I would like made to the EStaRS design file. Once the list gets long enough, I will make the changes and push a new commit.

Siphon Design

• 
  • Replace HL.FiBwSF + HL.FiBwSS with HL.FiBwInitiation for clarity. Remove H.FiForwardNoSuchAir, it is double counting the length of HL.FiDirty.

Elevations and Filter Sizing

• 
  • Both HL.FiTerminal and HL.FiCleanPath include clean bed head loss.
  • Replace HL.FiTerminal with HL.FiDirty

[clare45]

I talked to Ethan yesterday briefly about the video you send me. He said that you and Anna had measured everything out before actually assembling it so he was unsure why the calculations would change based on fab method and that he had nothing to do with determining lengths for any of it. It's possible I was unclear in my description of what part of the code this was, but I am unsure of a direction to go to update those functions

[juanchon998]

Interesting... it seems the fabrication method for the filters was developed shortly after I left Honduras last year based on the dates of the video and pictures in the google photos album. So Anna must have had something to do with it. Here is the latest EStaRS file that Anna sent me. I looked over it quickly and thought that it was overshadowed by the one in the most recent version of the design code, but perhaps the trunk calculations for the new fabrication method are in this one.

GitHub doesn't let me attach the references that you need in this comment. I'll send you an email instead. The design tool version was 7808, but if the first 5 files (MathFunctions etc.) work then there's no need to go back and change the version.

[eak24]

What is the concern about the calculations? Too much headloss during backwash? Uneven flow distribution?

…

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:28 PM Juan Guzman ***@***.***> wrote: Interesting... it seems the fabrication method for the filters was developed shortly after I left Honduras last year based on the dates of the video and pictures in the google photos album. So Anna must have had something to do with it. Here is the latest EStaRS file that Anna sent me. I looked over it quickly and thought that it was overshadowed by the one in the most recent version of the design code, but perhaps the trunk calculations for the new fabrication method are in this one. GitHub doesn't let me attach the references that you need in this comment. I'll send you an email instead. The design tool version was 7808, but if the first 5 files (MathFunctions etc.) work then there's no need to go back and change the version. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIMAo1yV3Cm2GdBLp1EgcCqLIoLHXTK4ks5umf2sgaJpZM4W7dVW> .

-- *EIT, MEng* AguaClara Software Engineer (607)-241-0693 Agua Para el Pueblo <https://www.apphonduras.org/> [image: https://www.aguaclarareach.org/] <https://www.aguaclarareach.org/>

[juanchon998]

Not at the moment! This week Bayron and I will likely be testing the filter in the workshop for headloss.

If I'm understanding correctly Clare's question and my response was regarding Clare porting over the EStaRS design code from Mathcad to RST/python. In the section that finds the trunk lengths, the calculations are done for the old method, not the one involving shoving the 1" pipe length-wise into the half-pipe attached to the manifolds. Thus when Clare ports over the design code, it makes sense for her to have the pipe length calculations be for this new method

[eak24]

In some respects, yes. That is, if we think that the new method passes muster. In general, I like to port over the latest method that has been tested in the field and then update it. But if you think the new method is the future, let's shortcut that process. Also, how does the calculation change at all? The part that is "cut off" so to speak, because there is a vertical pipe at the end, was just dead space in the original design. I'm not sure it has any hydraulic effect... thoughts?

[juanchon998]

I would say that the method has been successfully tested in the field in El PODA. Though the PODA filters are suffering from problems, the new manifold ingress/egress system is working very well. I haven't finely combed the part of the design code that looks at the pipe lengths, but I believe Clare's current project is to understand what was done in the latest EStaRS Mathcad, adjust it for the new method, and port it over to RST. So we'll see if there's a difference! I suspect you're right and there isn't much of a difference.

[eak24]

Glad to hear they are working! As for the MathCAD - I have no clue what the state of that file is...

…

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 11:07 Juan Guzman ***@***.***> wrote: I would say that the method *has* been successfully tested in the field in El PODA. Though the PODA filters are suffering from problems, the new manifold ingress/egress system is working very well. I haven't finely combed the part of the design code that looks at the pipe lengths, but I believe Clare's current project is to understand what was done in the latest EStaRS Mathcad, adjust it for the new method, and port it over to RST. So we'll see if there's a difference! I suspect you're right and there isn't much of a difference. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIMAo7QvzThx2xikY0a9zEAzv1uG_uLkks5unzCdgaJpZM4W7dVW> .