So, if I understand this correctly - "Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova, and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"

Thanks WP for the explanation. Very cool that someone who knows how can control these factors. Want to drill a residential water well for me?

?

Not a sci-fi fan? Intended to mean - it can be complicated and you need to know what you're doing to do it right.

Posted By GBT(EU) on 06 Aug 2010 06:19 AM
Just a couple of things to be aware of:

A 300' hole takes about 10 minutes to install the loop with clips, total. Not 10 minutes longer than it takes without.


From an owner or Architect/Engineers point of view, I would insist that the tremie go in with the loop pipe, whether clips are used or not. If the tremie is going in anyway, there is virtually no time lost adding clips, but certainly added value for the customer.

Interesting. So the clips add no time to the process as long as they are already installed?!?

Again if a customer insists on a product I will ask my driller "how much" and add it to the price. I am indifferent to the vehicle as long as I get desired EWT.

J

I guess if you are only paying $6 a foot to drill, you can afford a lot more hole. It reminds me of decades back when fuel was cheap so it was typical to oversize the furnace. As the costs goes up the value of the clips may also. It took 4 full days to drill my 2 400' holes and set pipe, grout and bring the pipe inside. The helpers waited idle for quite a bit of time so if the boss was making some money having them put the clips on, they could have been making him money instead of just an expense.
I don't see how anyone could equate snapping clips on a pipe as being as valuable as running a drill. No wear on equipment.

Posted By Volleyball on 17 Aug 2010 08:50 AM
I don't see how anyone could equate snapping clips on a pipe as being as valuable as running a drill. No wear on equipment.

If insurance for the rig, and purchase (or lease) payments for the rig would stop when the rig stops drilling, I might agree with you, but these payments don't stop.  If the rig is tied up at the customer for whatever the reason when it could be utilized elsewhere (drilling) I understand the argument for charging full rate for delays.

WP, since this thread was brought up again, ever heard from Rehau?

Posted By Volleyball on 17 Aug 2010 08:50 AM
I guess if you are only paying $6 a foot to drill, you can afford a lot more hole. It reminds me of decades back when fuel was cheap so it was typical to oversize the furnace. As the costs goes up the value of the clips may also. It took 4 full days to drill my 2 400' holes and set pipe, grout and bring the pipe inside. The helpers waited idle for quite a bit of time so if the boss was making some money having them put the clips on, they could have been making him money instead of just an expense.
I don't see how anyone could equate snapping clips on a pipe as being as valuable as running a drill. No wear on equipment.

It is true that some "labor saving" devices cost more than the labor.
Contractors are reluctant to veer from things they already know will work but will look for alternatives if labor or drilling costs soar.
j

I have spoken with them and started to peel the layers back on the system. The pricing of the system is still to be determined. The data sheet they included with the initial contact was for one bore hole only???? The sheet said that to multiple boreholes you needed the design sheet for that. When I called and asked about the sheet for multiple boreholes they said they were working on it and would get it to me post haste. When I get the design sheet for the multi-hole I will post my findings and fax the whole packet to someone more clever than me to post.
Eric

p.s.
As for the drilling and charging full price, what you are missing is the element of time. My helpers do not have the luxery of "standing idle" we typically do a rod change every 20 to 30 seconds.

Sorry if this lost some meaning, on the way across the Atlantic: If you do it right, installing a GeoClipped Loop shouldn't take longer than installing an un-clipped Loop, it is certainly quicker than installing the Loop alone, followed by the tremie, as a separate operation... The video on www.geoclip.com/install_video.asp shows an installer doing the job... If I was the client, I'd prefer a ride in a Rolls Royce, rather than a Model T....

There is nothing I dislike more than slanted data. At geoclip.com on the main page the graph touting the benefits of the clips usage clearly states that the poster loop for the company was installed using tc grout of unknown weight. The other two loops were installed using bentonite grout of unknown solids content. That begs the question was it the clip? The tc grout? Both? How close would the results have been if all the loops were done using the same tc grout? I like my data apples and apples, not slanted one way or the other.
Eric

All the data I see on their site does show the effect of just the clip.

I looked briefly and couldn't find the study they refer to. If anyone can find this study, it might shed more light on this.

I like the "These results are typical" comment, but it doesn't say what they base this comment on.

I looked at this page on the geoclip site:  http://geoclip.com/research.html

Geome,
That is the corect address and the chart is the Borehole thermal conductivity.  The middle and top line on the graph says that  "bentonite was used"  The bottom line says that tc grout was used.  Why wasn't tc grout used for all three examples?
Eric

Posted By geome on 19 Aug 2010 04:50 PM
I looked at this page on the geoclip site: http://geoclip.com/research.html

On all three curves, the temperature is still rising quite
steadily after ~two days of continuous operation. To me,
that says that the surrounding soil is still warming up,
and loop-field BTU capacity (rather than bore conductivity)
might well be the limiting factor over an entire season.

The really meaningful test would be to continue running
until the loop water temperatures leveled off -- to see
what effect, if any, GeoClips have on the loop's ability to
sink/source BTUs beyond the very beginning of the season.

It would also be interesting to know whether all 3 test
bores were the same depth, or whether the GeoClip bores
were shortened by 20% to 30% -- as advertised elsewhere
on geoclip.com

I just sent an email to geoclip (GBT, Inc.) (Geothermal Bore Technologies, not Green Building Talk) asking for an internet link to the study. I'll let you know if I hear back.

"On all three curves, the temperature is still rising quite
steadily after ~two days of continuous operation. To me,
that says that the surrounding soil is still warming up,
and loop-field BTU capacity (rather than bore conductivity)
might well be the limiting factor over an entire season"
Oh my....are you suggesting the soil TC might be the limiting factor here? Oh wait, you just said that.
Frankly, most of you are smarter than me, all I know is the engineers at CM suggest 2 loops in 1 bore hole only improve performance by 10% ish.
Seems to me (as one of the unlearned) if twice the loop in the same bore only adds 10 points and necessarily impacts loop spacing; borehole spacing can't add much more (if as much).
All that said, I still contract loops out and don't care how you diggers deliver design EWT to me
j

That sums it up nicely for me.

I simply can't envision what difference an inch or less of space between risers and down comers could possibly make when in the same breath we all acknowledge that it is necessary to separate individual bores by 10-15 feet or more.

Eric / WaterPirate set me straight as to some potential gain in running two pairs of U-tubes down very expensive, hard-fought bores through rock. I wonder if 1@ 1-1/4" u tube vs two at 3/4" would have the same effect, though considerations of turbulent flow need to be accounted for - double 3/4" paths may make for good turbulence at lower flow rates.

Hi curt,
BINGO!!!!
Aside from the turbulent flow issues, it is common to put the most pipe possible in the smallest bore possible in a hard fought rock bore.  Because we are so close to the transition line, 75 odd miles in two directions.  When engineering firms stsrt spreading out a bit we often see test bores spec'd at 11/4 by 600' and once 2" by 600".  These bigger loops and deeper bores are based on the minimum size of the rock hammer being used, and the amount of time required to move a rock rig from one hole to the next.  I would prefer putting the larger loop in one bore, accomplishing the closest to the outside wall of the bore, rather than inserting multiple smaller loops with attachments.

Eric

Posted By joe.ami on 19 Aug 2010 10:34 PM

...all I know is the engineers at CM suggest 2 loops
in 1 bore hole only improve performance by 10% ish.

But, but, but, you can get another 24% by installing geoclips on
both loops, ...and up to 30% or more with tc-enhanced grout.
Now, just use copper in place of HDPE for an additional 40% --
and you prolly won't need any bore at all.

"I put instant coffee in the microwave and almost went back in time."
- Steven Wright

.

Oh Crap!
How am I ever going to feed and clothe Mrs. Pirate and all the little Pirates if we do not need bore holes anymore?