This is part of an article which appeared in a British farmers publication called Practical Farm Ideas in the Spring 1997 edition. The full article was 1 and one third pages with pictures. At that time we called it the blow pump. (The pump can pump much higher than 4 meters).
Below you will find some web comment. Some didn't even look at
the web page before commenting but Peter Guerin certainly did. In fairness,
few have ever heard of a tromp, it is like an airlift pump working in reverse.
(His bit is at the end in Brown).
Re: water power, no moving parts.
Sun, 14 Mar 1999 09:19:30 GMT
firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Guerin)
Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
1 , 2 , 3 , 4
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 16:06:00 -0500, "LETH'R" <email@example.com> wrote:
>Well, it wasn't my original post, but I have the web site for ya:
>http://w(our old web address)
>Take a look. It seems to use the head of falling water, and entrained
>bubbles to move water up another pipe like a bubbler tube.
>Maybe you'll get a different take on it than I did.
>Tim Wilson wrote in message <36E884B3.A1E35021@cmwave.com>...
>>If this discussion is about a hydraulic ram there are two moving parts
>>the clack valve and the output check valve.
The device described is also known as a tromp or trompe. It is an old technology that was used in blast furnaces and mines in the past. The drawing at htp(old web address) shows the top of the inlet pipe level with the surface of the water.Another way to introduce air into the water flow is to use a venturi towards the top of the inlet pipe. This also allows the air to water ratio to be varied by controlling the air inlet. The drawing shows the small diameter pipe below the water level in the holding chamber.If the purpose was to pump air only the pipe would terminate at the top of the chamber. This technology has been proven for several hundred years and I think it may still be useful today in micro hydro-electric applications. The air could be reticulated to a pneumatically driven generator. This has the advantage of removing expensive turbines and generators from damage by flood and corosion , and cutting transmission losses between the point of generation and storage or use.
We recommend a low-cost simple approach. In saying that, there is nothing wrong with Peter Guerin's approach. However going deep enough to give enough pressure to work that generator would prove too expensive for the average user.