# Math issues - Amount of water in a 1½ inch pipe

Page 2 of 4
• posted on November 12, 2011, 4:24 am
On Nov 11, 7:52 am, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Which was my point.
Harry K
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 12, 2011, 5:36 am
wrote:

But you still have to lift that section of pipe, water and all. The length of interest (for calculating the water's weight) is the length from the well lever to the maximum pull height. IOW, the water doesn't drain out of the pipe as it's lifted, as suggested.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 12, 2011, 7:56 am
On Nov 11, 9:36 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

om> wrote:

The weight decreases as each length of pipe is removed or each foot of poly is brought up. You are nitpicking.
Harry K
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 12, 2011, 12:07 pm

om> wrote:

.com> wrote:

I think we need to recap here. I posted:
"The water in the pipe above the water line adds directly to the weight that must be lifted. "
To which you replied:
"Water above the well head drains out as the pipe is lifted."
To which I rpelied:
How does that happen with a check valve at the submersible pump?
To which you replied:
"Did you think a couple hundred feet of pipe stands straight up in the air? The water drains out the _open_ end of the pipe of course. "
I think you, KRW and I are all in agreement on the physics. Where this first went wrong was with you suggesting that draining of the water was a factor. I was never thinking of water remaining in the whole pipe as it's being pulled. Only water in the pipe that is still in the well. That seemed to be the focus of the thread, the weight of the assembly being pulled out of the well and I think everyone agrees that as a section is removed, neither the weight of that pipe nor it's contents are a factor. The water in the pipe inside the well above the water line does add directly to the weight being lifted, which was my comment that you seemed to disagree with.
I then made the mistake of thinking you meant water draining out of the pipe that was still in the well, hence my comment about the check valve preventing that. But I think we are all in agreement that:
A - The pipe is indeed removed a section at a time and once removed it's not a weight factor
B - The water inside the pipe, between the water line and the top of the pipe at or above the wellhead adds to the weight being lifted.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 12, 2011, 8:34 pm
wrote:

.com> wrote:

il.com> wrote:

Yep, I was thinking the same thing last night.
As to the effect of water in the pipe _below_ the static level I dreamed up a good mind experiment to show that it has no effect.
Rig a pipe with a valve at one end that can be closed. Submerge the pipe with valve open 10' into water - weigh pipe. Leave pipe there and close valve - weigh pipe. No difference.
Harry K
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 12, 2011, 2:06 pm
wrote:

No, you're wrong and I'm telling you how. The weight of the water being lifted is increases as each *section* is pulled, but is otherwise a constant for each section, until the foot is above the well level.
BTW, it's not "poly". The OP's well pipe is iron.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 11, 2011, 4:51 pm

the pumps check valve would prevent tjhat
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 12, 2011, 4:24 am

Boggles
Harry K
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2011, 4:03 pm
On Nov 9, 6:23 am, "Stormin Mormon"

CY-
Recheck your calc...... looks like you're off by 12x.
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2011, 12:02 am
Thomas J. Glover's Pocket Ref. Sequoia Press. More than you want to know about "stuff". And very handy.
Steve
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2011, 12:09 pm
On Nov 9, 6:44 am, snipped-for-privacy@myplace.com wrote:

take a one foot piece of 1.5 inch pipe of any type, seal one end, fill with water. pour into old empty milk jug, do repeatedly till your happy with answer.....
things to ponder once you pull up pipe weight will go down no doubt pipe will have to be cut apart as you go. sell scrap pipe at metal recyclers. around here its with about 12 bucks per hundred, so you have over a 100 bucks of scrap:)
the pipe is 300 feet long, is that well depth or total length of pipe from pump including surface run? if surface that makes it far easier:)
replace schedule 40 with roll of poly pipe, that will cut costs, non corosive and lightweight.
what are you doing for water during project?
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2011, 12:55 pm
wrote:

That will work too....

I know it had to be cut apart or unscrewed. I like the \$100 for scrap. The pump alone is going to cost \$600 or more depending on which one I get. Then the pipe and possibly wire, and whatever fittings and stuff are needed.

Yep, it will get lighter as it comes up and is cut apart.... Just hope my tractor can handle the initial pull. It sounds like I'm 150lbs over the lifting capability, and I know what the tractor can handle from lifting round bales of hay. But maybe a few hydraulic jacks can help the initial lift.

That's the plan.

I will be hauling it on 55gal barrels from a neighbor. But I have livestock too, and they use a lot of water. The plan is to pump the water for the livestock out of a spring fed creek which is on the neighbors land, but only a about 50 feet away. (He said I could). I still have to rent or borrow some sort of pump for that.
My well pump is still pumping, but it cuts out every few minutes now. It took 4 hours to fill the stock tanks yesterday (about 550 gallons).
Major pain in the ass....
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2011, 1:25 pm
On Nov 9, 7:55 am, snipped-for-privacy@myplace.com wrote:

I would prepare for a new well, the water table may have dropped, the well may be collapsing, etc etc.
once you start pulling what water you have is over....
i would at least talk to pros in advance.
say you begin pulling on a sunday by monday morning you realize its a lost cause..... and your well is now totally out of serviceL(
so you call some local drillers who are all tied up on other jobs for over a week:(
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2011, 8:33 pm
On Nov 9, 7:55 am, snipped-for-privacy@myplace.com wrote:

I don't know squat about well pumps, so don't slap me too hard for this question:
Instead of renting/borrowing a pump for the creek, why can't you use the pump that you are going to use in the well to pump the livestock water from the creek?
Once you have the old still-sort-of working pump out of the well, swap it for the new one at the creek while you install the new one in the well.
What don't I know?
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2011, 12:36 pm
<snip>
A problem much easier solved with metric measurements. Reminder. google does calculations for you. Google knows conversions.
1. What is the inside diameter of the pipe? Say it is 1 inch, or 2.54 cm. 2. The length is 300 feet or 300*30 cm, or 9000 cm (a foot is actually a little over 30 cm, 30.48 cm, so you can redo the math). 3. Volume of pipe is 2.54*(pi)*9000 or 71,816.8081 cm^3 or 72,000 cm^3 4. 1 cm^3 weighs 1 gram 5. water in pipe weighs 72,000 gram, or 72 kg 6. 1 kg= 2.2 lbs Final: Water in pipe weighs about 158.4 lbs
(Sorry ...) Major variable is the actual inside diameter.
--
Best regards
Han
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2011, 12:40 pm

Sorry, need to use pi*r squared not 2r*pi (2.54/2)squared*pi*9000=~45000 grams 45 kg0.32 lbs
Better?
--
Best regards
Han
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2011, 3:30 pm

I guess it wasn't that much easier. Even "Senile" Mike got it right the first time using imperial units. ;-)

âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2011, 9:00 pm

Hey, I'm retired. May I have a senior moment? I still think that metric is easier for this kind of thing. Formulae for circumference, surface and volume should be imprt=inted on my brain, but this time ...
--
Best regards
Han
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2011, 1:36 am

I retired five years ago, but didn't like it so went back to work. I was retired earlier this year but I'm still too young to do it permanently, so...
Metric is easier if the inputs and output are in metric. Imperial is easier if the units are imperial, as in this case. Converting is just asking for trouble. Ask NASA. ;-)
âœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2011, 1:51 am

I can see that, but I'm 67 now, and I had my fill of certain aspects of my position, so I will not likely unretire <grin>.

Grew up in Hlland, so metric is more natural, really, although imperial has grown on me the last 42 years ...
What I like about metric is the powers of 10 rather than funny factors (12"/ft, whatever cubic inches/gal, 11 sq feet/m^2, whatever). also, in my educatgion it was really important to get the powers of 10 (orders of magnitude) straight. Sometimes I am good at that, too <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han