Filter setter project timeline

Pan Ring Setters 2
Version 1: Pan ring
– Currently in use in some factories manufacturing round bottom filters.
– Round bottom filters nest deeply allowing for denser stacking.
– Hand pressed into molds.
– Variation, using pieces of cut rejected filters.
– Weight is distributed onto filter rims in 3 point compression.
– Weight of stacked filters is distributed in compression cumulatively onto filter rims below.

DSCF08472
Version 2: Interlocking setter block
Abandoned during prototype process due to complex moldmaking process.
– Weight distributed in compression consecutively onto setters.
– Individual filter weight distributed in 3 point compression on rims.
– Interlocking nodes assist with locating setters.
– Hand pressed into plaster molds.

IMGP0268
Version 3: Ring Setter
Abandoned during firing testing.
– Weight of stacked filters is distributed in compression cumulatively onto filter bottoms below.
– Wheel thrown
– Firing test failed due to stress fractures. Possible cause: shrinkage differential, faulty weight contact distribution.

DSCF6259
Verion 4: Pitet Setter
Currently in prototype phase.
– Original master was jiggered, causing various difficulties.
– Proposed masters to be Lathed (CNC) or 3DP.
– Individual filter weight distributed in 3 point compression on rims.
– Interlocking nodes assist with locating setters.
– Weight distributed in compression consecutively onto setters.
– Potential to be manufactured from filter medium.

Preliminary prototype manufacturing method allows for reasonable minimum daily production, however not all materials necessary to build the mechanism are widely available (8″ plastic pipe).
First test firing results proof of concept passed. Next phase begins field trials and feedback process.
Field trials will select a partner CWF factory to produce and test the setters on a production scale. Comparisons will be made in terms of durability, labor time, fuel reduction, packing density, and applicability to various filter shapes.

Video link: http://youtu.be/NLnjDE5jxSY

Setters update.

Here is an update on the filter setters project.

Our first problem was that of alignment. This is something that we struggle with in designing appropriate technology pressing equipment. Finding a cheap and simple mechanism to keep the two halves of the mold aligned
throughout the pressing cycle.

In the case of the filter setter press, the pressures are not extreme, I wish we could figure out how to calculate the pressure curve in solidworks, anyone? facebook
In this case the difficulty of finding 2 pieces of pipe that fit together closely, caused us to try and make the outer pipe to spec. with concrete. We used a piece of 200mm green sewer pipe (expensive at $80) for the main structure. It was wrapped with 4 layers of 6 mil plastic sheet but not taped to the pipe, so the pipe could slide freely. Then placed the parts into a 12″ sonotube and cast quickrete around it.
We also cut holes into the top to fit a branch of maple for the handle.

http://tinyurl.com/qaey3oo

The inner pipe slid out easily (rotated just as the concrete had hardened green), and then the plastic.
We cut a bottom part of the green pipe now for the female mold.

For the male mold, after trying various other methods, we had it machined from aluminum at Armstrong Machine
shop.

http://tinyurl.com/qx8ydf7

This way it could thread directly onto the end of the 5/8″ threaded rod. The cutter is being made now, 1/2″ flat bar and a piece of pipe welded onto some 3mm steel plate. Can I borrow a MIG in Vernon? facebook
This will be cast into quickrete or plaster (running out of quickrete) inside the top part of the green pipe.

http://tinyurl.com/n9xp6pe

Making the female mold was a bit more complicated. We figured out after many tries to cut a profile out of arborite (countertop material $4 for offcuts at homehardware (coated fiberglass)) and to cut a master on a plaster lathe. We used hydrocal here because the pottery plaster from winrock was dead and I didnt want to drive back to Kelowna to return it. It turns out Hydrocal might be better anyway.

http://tinyurl.com/oknjd3w

Since doing this last time we figured out a better way to cast the female mold. As you can see from the photos the mold is unnecessarily in 3 parts since the level was off on the pouring of the second half (tape blowout, oops). It took quite a bit of time to get it to slide in and out of a whole pipe section easily but tightly.
It was scraped with the edge of a fresh Olfa blade.

http://tinyurl.com/q4cso35

The green pipe was a bit warped so it doesnt spin around in the concrete casting as well as hoped. about
100deg but not all the way around. Should still work.

Here are all the photos together on gplus: http://tinyurl.com/qg2cdlc

Particle Size Distribution Analysis for Ceramic Pot Water filter production

Maria del Mar Duocastella and Kai Morrill

Potters Without Borders, Enderby, British Columbia, Canada – September 2012

Abstract: To develop a standard Particle Distribution Analysis testing protocol for use in Ceramic Pot Water Filter factories.

Introduction: Ceramic Pot Water filters are generally manufactured from sources of raw clay that vary in their consistency, some factories have begun using particle distribution analysis to qualify clay batches, as well as for blending multiple clay sources in order to maintain a more homogeneous clay body. In order to promote common testing methods between factories, we have begun herein to develop testing protocols that utilize widely available apparatus and materials. It is desirable to develop an effective test that is easily accessible to individuals with limited laboratory experience. This test must be able to be performed in extremely rudimentary conditions with limited resources while presenting reliably accurate results. We hope that by establishing stabilized testing standards specific to filter production the test data will be useful in comparing clay bodies between all participating filter factories. We find that difficulties in ensuring that identical lab equipment is used (cylinder dimensions) may make it difficult to accurately compare results across different factories. Several standards already exist for soil classification; particles can be classified into categories of Clay, Silt or Sand. These categories are demarcated recognizing that suspended particle size is in direct relationship to settling time. For our purposes, we established a baseline for classification by comparing other standards and examining the results of our tests.

Although it is useful for general comparisons to define the samples by the three categories (Sand, Silt, Clay), for the purposes of detailed clay sample comparison, it is better to collect data from various particle sizes, thus developing a curve of particle size distribution. For this reason we tested samples at 13 different time intervals: 30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours, and 24 hours. Having this expanded range of sample data allows us to compare samples in greater detail. These times were also chosen in order to complete the test within an 8 hour work day. *Note 1: Samples in Appendix 2 (Raw Data) which fall outside the standard testing procedure (Those prepared 24 or 48 hours before testing) were excluded from the final averages as there was significant variation in their results. It would have been interesting to use the results gathered to compare particle distribution results to burnout mixture ratios used in the participating factories. This proprietary information did not receive specific approval prior to publication.

Download (PDF, 1.21MB)

Creative Commons License
Particle Distribution Analysis for Ceramic Pot Water Filter Production by Potters Without Borders is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at http://potterswithoutborders.com/?p=3499.

Criteria Report for Household Water Treatment Solutions

When are ceramic water filters appropriate?

Community Choices Tool for Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Pacific Institute

Household Water Treatment Solutions Criteria Report
Criteria Used for Ranking Household Water Treatment Solutions
Below you can view information that clarifies how your individual answers to the questions impacted the Community Choices Tool’s
recommendations for technologies and approaches that are appropriate for your situation and needs.
NOTE: This demonstration prototype of the Community Choices Tool contains rankings for the few solutions we have in the database. We
envision that once fully developed, the Community Choices Tool will be able to evaluate and rank hundreds of technologies and approaches
for the entire WASH sector, and from those it will be able to create fully customized solutions for each user (rather than the static solutions it
has now).

Download (PDF, 32KB)

Problems with Mold Release

Ceramic water filters are typically cast-formed utilizing aluminum, steel or sometimes concrete molds. The wet mix or charge is placed in or over the molds and the male and female are forced together under pressure to form the shape. Two plastic bags on the inside and outside of the form act as separators that allow the new filter to be easily and cleanly released from the molds. Since developing the process, and in collaboration with filter producers, we have sought an alternative to the use of plastic bags. Attempts have been made to replace bags by using:

  • palm oil
  • teflon
  • waste oil
  • silicone spray
  • silicone plastic

A Ghanaian filter producer (Tamakloe Ceramics) reportedly has been able to eliminate one of the bags by carefully applying palm oil to the inside of the female mold before each pressing.

An Italian flower pot manufacturer reportedly using a thin liquid as a release agent utilizing a similar twin mold technology.

The Ram Company utilizes plaster press molding techniques in which forms are ejected from porous hydraulic plaster by employing compressed air. While this technology would work, it would require an on going supply of hydraulic plaster. 

Material input variables

Fine Vs. Coarse sawdust
What is the relationship between fine and coarse sawdust on filter strength?

 

1. Compare filters of gradually increasing amounts of fine, and then coarse, sawdust. Compare strength of filters of similar flow rate.
2. Refire low flow rate filters to attempt to equalize the flow rates, then Compare strength of filters of similar flow rate. (Hypothesis is that firing for longer, or higher, will increase both strength and flow rate).
3. If filters using fine sawdust and longer/higher firing results in a stronger filter of higher flow rate, compare fine sawdust filters with coarse sawdust filters of the same flow rate for bacterial effectivity.

 

Adding Coarse Sand
What are the effects of coarse sand on a constant mix of clay and sawdust in terms of:
a) Strength
b) Flow rate
c) Bacterial effectivity
d) Shrinkage

Adding Crushed Filter Medium (Grog)
What are the effects of crushed filter grog  in a constant mix of clay and sawdust in terms of:
a) Strength
b) Flow rate
c) Bacterial effectivity
d) Shrinkage

Pugged Vs. Unpugged Clay
What is the effect of pugging clay  in addition to mechanical mixing on the  strength of ceramic water filters.
To evaluate this it is necessary to first agree on the method of evaluation. It is suggested that the filter strength be evaluated using a modified modulus of rupture test(MOR)

1. Compare constant mixes of filter medium with variable pugging times for strength and flow rate.

Development of appropriate mixers

Developing appropriate processing mixers, pug mills , or hybrid machines for ceramic water filter factories.

Ceramic pot filters that produce potable water are made from a mixture of clay and combustible materials, usually sawdust or rice husk. Both the clay and the combustible are crushed and screened, dry blended, and then wet mixed before forming. Factories employ simple paddle mixers and in some cases also, pug mills to prepare the mix. There are also factories which do the entire mixing process by hand. While it is possible to produce filters using a variety of methods it is useful to identify methods which produce better and consistent filters so that improvements can be made.

  • Paddle mixers are commonly used in filter factories but work best when the size of charge which they are mixing  is carefully monitored, neither too small or large. Too small a charge and the mixing action  will not work, too large and the mixer will also perform poorly. This is one reason why employing a pug mill after mixing can greatly increase the quality of the blending.
  • Pug mills do a fairly consistent job at wet blending materials. Pug mills are horizontal (most commonly) augers, that differ from paddle mixers in that they must be attended by an operator. The operator puts clay materials in the hopper where it is shredded and then compacted as it makes its way out the narrowing nozzle.  Performance and speed differ depending on size and whether the machine has  single or double screws. Pug mills come in either non-de airing or de-airing. De-airing is not necessary for filter mixes.
  • Hybrid pugger/ mixers

 

http://www.peterpugger.com/pugmill-extruder/pm-50-pugmill.html Commonly called Peter puggers, these are another potentially useful machines for filter blends. The machine integrates

the work of two machines, a mixer and a standard pug mill.
A hopper is loaded with the mix  and the machine  mixes and pugs,  depending in which direction the mixer is rotated. These machines do an excellent job integrating materials. The challenge with these machines is that they are expensive and tend to be beyond the reach of factories. Ideally an open-source version of this machine  might  be developed which would allow it to be produced locally at a reduced cost.

Use of concrete for mixer / puggers

Concrete Mixers were  first developed by Paul Soldner. http://www.soldnerequipment.com/index.html

This is a paddle type mixer where the body of the mixer is made with a rotating concrete hopper  and a fixed paddle.

In his book “A Potters Alternative”  Harry Davis outlines instructions and plans for making pugmills from both steel and concrete.  The concrete version would  be a potential model for filter workshops. By following the plans in the book perhaps a set of templates could be produced and made available to factories that wish to have machines produced locally. This robust design has great application for developing world factories because of its simplicity of design and because the machine is made with off the shelf parts (Dayton). Aside from the cast formed ferro-concrete drum there are no specialized parts on the machine  which make it an ideal candidate for open-source cloning. (http://www.axner.com/potters-alternative.aspx)


Affordable presence absence testing

Fired filters are currently being assessed by factories using three tests. Filters are
dunk tested to identify cracks that allow water to leak through the filter more quickly. If
they pass that test they are then soaked and flow tested. After flow testing, water from
some filters may be challenge tested to see if they actually remove bacteria. The cost of the
presence/absence (P/A) tests is prohibitive enough that not all filters are challenge
tested in this way.

Ideally every filter would be tested so that they are demonstrably capable of delivering
safe water. A simple P/A  test on the order of 10-40 cents each would make it cost
effective for producers to test every sound filter. This test would be conducted
at the same time that flow testing is conducted, allowing the producer to save
time and guarantee that each filter is demonstrably effective.

Pug Mills Increase the Strength of Filters

Pug mills really do increase the strength of our filters. At our facility in Yunnan China, we did an experiment where we made 12 blocks as we usually do (banging them on the floor) and each weighing 8.6kg (as usual).

Derek Chitwood wrote…

“Pug mills really do increase the strength of our filters. At our facility in Yunnan China, we did an experiment where we made 12 blocks as we usually do (banging them on the floor) and each weighing 8.6kg (as usual). In the next set of 12 we added 0.2kg to each block (8.8 kg) thinking that the extra material would cause extra compression – and work like a pug mill in effect. Our 3rd set of 12 had an extra 0.4kg in each block (9.0kg) – that was a lot of waste and frustrating for the technician. Then the 4th set of 12 had all the clay first go through a pug mill once and then was made into normal 8.6kg blocks (as usual – pounding them on the ground). The results where that the crack point of our filters increased about 9%. “  See the figure:
— in Kunming, Yunnan, China.

Data courtesy of Derek Chitwood

Kiln Setting

Here we are in the workshop doing more work on the computer than on the workbench, but its nice to have the specs to share.

There has been some work done on designing a special kiln setting to fit more filters into a kiln-load. The ones in the photos below have been made with the same mix as the filter-body.

They are functional, but we wanted to see if we could make them less massive without loosing too much of their structural strength.

This is the kiln post that is being experimented with now:

Original CWF kiln post

The filter posts in use

And here is a photo of the improved version:

Sketchup screenshot of CWF Kiln Posts

or download the sketchup file:

http://potterswithoutborders.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/filtersetterversion2.skp

GTZ Yemen Ceramic Water Filter Flow Test Results

GTZ Yemen Ceramic Water Filter Flow Test Results

Summary

6 -#1 Mix Filters 2.33 liters/hour average

10 – #2 Mix filters all more then 3.5 liters per hour

9- # 3 Mix Filters- All more then 3.5 liters/hour

1-#4 Mix Filter- More then 3.5 liters per hour

No # 5 Mix filters survived the forming process –due to fragility

4 -#6filters- All more then 3.5 liters/hour

Total Filters Flow Tested-30

Filters formed- 48

One Hour Flow test-After forming and firing to a temperature of between 912-923C most filters were soaked in water for more than twenty four hours. The filters were then filled with water and allowed to stand for one hour. The amount of water filtered was measured using a pvc tee shaped gauge which was set on the filters. (See photos)

Mix #1

Formula Batch Wt.

Sana’a Clay- 95% 8550

Sawdust 5% 450

100% 9000gr.

Of 6- Mix #1 Filters

2.5liters

2.5 liters

2.5 liters

2 liters

2 liters

2.5 liters

Flow Test-2.33 liters/hour average

Mix 2– 5% More clay then 50/50 Proportion

Formula Batch Wt.

Sana’a Clay- 90% 8100

Sawdust 10 900

100% 9000gr.

Flow test

Of 10- Mix#2 filters- All filters were more then 3.5 liters per hour

Mix 3– 50/50 Proportion by Volume

Formula Batch Wt.

Sana’a Clay- 85.6% 8127

Sawdust 14.4 1372

100% 9499gr.

3.5 liters water (estimated)

Flow test

Of 9- Mix #3 Filters- All filters were more than 3.5 liters/hour

Mix 4 – 5% Less clay then 50/50 Proportion

Formula Batch Wt.

Sana’a Clay- 80% 7136

Sawdust 20% 1784

  1. 8920

Flow Test

Only 1- Mix# 4 filter emerged from the mold intact, because of fragility-( One filter broke during flow testing) This filter was more than 3.5 liter/hour

Mix #5

Formula Batch Wt.

Sana’a Clay- 75% 6750

Sawdust 25% 2250

100% 9000gr

Flow Test-

No Mix#5 filters survived the forming process

Mix #6

Formula Batch Wt.

Sana’a Clay- 92.5% 8325

Sawdust 7.5% 675

100% 9000gr.

Flow test

Of 4 –Mix# 6 filters-all were more than 3.5 liters/hour

Download full document 34kb: yemen-ceramic-water-filter-flow-test-results.docyemen-ceramic-water-filter-flow-test-results.doc

April 28th 2007 filter firing Yemen GTZ

Time Description Door Bottom Door Top Chimney Side



Kiln On 4 corner burners






:30
60 93 122



1:00 Damper at 10 cm 69 93 128



1:22 6 burners (2 more near to the door)






1:30 Damper @ 15 cm 93 118 156



2:05
111 133 170



3:06
173 195 248



3:35 Smoke beginning to generate from filters 187 209 265



3:40 Heavy smoke






3:57
208 230 307



4:23 smoke reduced 228 245 337



4:26 8 Burners Damper@ 24 cm






4:38 Damper @ 27 cm 293 295 388



5:00 10 Burners 345 317 415



5:17
347 401 448



5:22 12 Burners (2 on low)






5:27
417 401 457



5:45
438 480 465



6:41 All burners on low 474 518 481



6:53
504 536 501



7:00 Increase two burners either side of the door 509 537 509



7:20
539 575 530



7:32 Increase ten more burners 554 588 543



8:00 Increase ten burners again slightly more 610 646 602



8:22 Damper @ 24 cm 650 684 639



8:40 Increase 8 burners on chimney side to full on 675 708 684



9:00 Increase 4 burners on door side to full 712 744 717



9:12 All burners on full 729 763 738



9:35
750 779 755



9:45 Increased pressure on gas manifold by kiln 784 813 784



9:58 Switched propane cylinder bank to +pressure 798 830 804



10:05 Cone 013 down 012 bending






10:10 Cone011 Bending 832 862 836



10:12 Cone 011 @ 3 o clock






10:14 Cone 011 down 844 874 845



10:16 Open damper to 22 cm 848 877




10:27
865 891 867



10:30
871 897 874



10:35 Begin Soaking period 874 899 878



10:40 All Cones except 09 down -reduce pressure 877 901 881



10:52 increase pressure slightly to maintain pressure 880 903 885




upper Cone 09 @ 3 o clock






11:00 ` 883 906 888



11:06
885 906 890



11:26
880 902 886



11:39 Kiln Off






Notes on the Sana’a, Yemen filter firing April 28th, 2007
The firing of the ceramic filters followed a firing of tanoor ovens by two days insuring that the kiln was well dried.
In firing the filters I was particularly concerned that all of the sawdust would be completely burned out so that trapped carbon would not cause a problem with the filters. This is necessary so that the finished filter be as strong as possible and so that flow rates not be effected by carbon in the filter body. Care must be taken in the stacking of the filters in the kiln to separate the filters using spacers so that heat can infiltrate throughout the setting. Filters should not stacked bottom to bottom without spacers as well. The filters staked on the floor of the kiln should be stacked on top of brick to elevate them. Another thermocouple was installed near the floor of the door to monitor the difference in temperature between the floor and the upper part of the kiln. It is recommended that monitoring of the temperature advance is done with a combination pyrometer, Orton temperature cones and draw trials.

A warm up period with a target temperature of 300 Celsius in the first 4 hours proved adequate to insure both moisture and carbon was not trapped.
After the warm up, an advance of 100 C per hour was desired up until a target temperature of 900 C. In practice we took longer to advance in temperature due to the amount of smoke which was generated by the burning out of the sawdust . At target temperature the firing was soaked for one hour. I had intended to soak for a longer period as per advice by other filter technicians, but after discussion with Bernd Pfannkuchen the kiln designer, and through evaluation of the draw trials* at the target temperature I decided that one hour soaking was adequate. An examination of the finished filters showed that there was no trapped carbon. The original recommendation of a longer soaking period is based on the use of the Mani kiln which is using solid fuels (wood) whereas the Sana’a catenary kiln fires with Propane under oxidizing conditions. Having the designer of the kiln to assist in the filter firing was a real advantage. Bernd gave advice and the kiln design proved very versatile. It is noteworthy that the Orton cones and the pyrometers showed less then one cone differential in temperature throughout the kiln.
*The draw trials were made from the same mix of clay and sawdust and formed into rings. These trials were positioned in the kiln on two levels near the floor and withdrawn through the ports in the door. These rings were then examined for residual carbon as well as for strength.

Pororsity Tests

Pororsity Tests*-150 to 200 gram Sections of fired filters were cut out of the lip, weighed, soaked for 24 hours and then re-weighed to evaluate.

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 1
Thursday January 18, 2007
Pororsity Test*- 38.8%
******

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 2
Saturday January 20th, 2007
Pororsity Test*- 32.2%
Mix Proportion represents 10% less sawdust than mix No. 1

******

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 3
January 22, 2007
Pororsity Test*- 34.5%
Mix Proportion represents 20% less sawdust than mix No. 1

******

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 4
January 24, 2007
Pororsity Test*- 45.6%
Mix Proportion represents 10% more sawdust than mix No. 1
******
Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 5
January 25, 2007
Pororsity Test*- 49.7%
Mix Proportion represents 20% more sawdust than mix No. 1

Technorati Tags : ,

Ceramic Water Filter Series Batch Tests Firing

Feb 8th, 2007
20 filters in firing – Target temperature 890 C.
Gas firing

Kiln On  — 1 Burner
1:00 187 C 2 Burners
2:06 277 C 4 Burners
3:20 523 C 6 Burners
4:00 544 C
4:58 560 C
5:40 682 C
6:06 707 C
6:38 805 C
7:12 850 C
7:21 861 C
7:40 890 C Begin Soak
8:00 893C
8:21 897C
8:40 894 C
9:00 Kiln Off

Firing Descriptions:

Of 20 filters 17 cracked during the firing. These cracks appeared to be dunts due apparently to rapid firing. The firing also revealed carbon retained in the filters mostly in the bottom of the filters. Of the three filters which were not cracked, two had carbon in the bottoms. The retained carbon appears to be caused either from insufficient soaking and or the method of stacking the ware in the kiln.

Ceramic Water Filter Series Batch Tests

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 1
Thursday January 18, 2007

Mix Proportions @ approximately 50-50 by volume

Plainsman Red Earth Clay 44lbs. (20 KG) 86.3%
Screened Sawdust 7lbs. (3.18 KG) 13.7%
Water 21 lbs 11.5 oz.

(62.31 lbs total mix used for 4 filters or 15.58 lbs per filter)

Clay and Sawdust were placed in mixer and mixed for 10 minutes.
Water was added and mixed a further 10 minutes.
20lbs. 3 oz. of the resulting mix was used as a charge for each filter
Four filters were made from this mix and were marked with Iron oxide with the date. *********************************************************

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 2
Saturday January 20th, 2007

Plainsman Red Earth Clay 44lbs. (20 kg) 87.5%
Screened Sawdust 6lbs.4.8oz (2.86 KG) 12.5%
Water 21 lbs

Mix Proportion represents 10% less sawdust then mix No. 1

********************************************************

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 3
January 22, 2007
Plainsman Red Earth Clay 44lbs. (20 kg) 88.7%
Screened Sawdust 5lbs. 9.6oz (2.55 KG) 11.3%
Water 20lbs
Mix Proportion represents 20% less sawdust then mix No. 1

******************************************************

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 4
January 24, 2007

Plainsman Red Earth Clay 44lbs. (20 kg) 85.1%
Screened Sawdust 7lbs. 11.2oz (3.5 KG) 14.9%
Water 21 lbs-9oz (9.8 KG)

Mix Proportion represents 10% more sawdust then mix No. 1

******************************************************

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 5
January 25, 2007

Plainsman Red Earth Clay 44lbs. (20 kg) 84%
Screened Sawdust 8lbs. 6.4oz (3.82KG) 16%
Water 26lbs (11.82 kg)

Mix Proportion represents 20% more sawdust then mix No. 1

Ceramic Water Filters – Batch Proportions


The first four filters from the PWB filter press. All produced using 50-50 mix of clay and sawdust. From left to right are, numbers: 1/18/07-4, 1/18/07-1, 1/18/07-2, 1/18/07-3. Details as follows:

PWB Filter Batch Tests:

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 1
Thursday January 18, 2007

Mix Proportions @ approximately 50-50 by volume
Plainsman Red Earth Clay 44lbs.
Screened Sawdust 7lbs.
Water 21 lbs 11.5 oz. (42.55%)
(62.31 lbs total mix used for 4 filters or 15.58 lbs per filter)

Clay and Sawdust were placed in mixer and mixed for 10 minutes. Water was added and mixed a further 10 minutes.

20lbs. 3 oz. of the resulting mix was used as a charge for each filter.

Four filters were made from this mix and were marked with Iron oxide with the date.

These tests are forthcomming:

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 2
Saturday January 20th, 2007
Plainsman Red Earth Clay 44lbs.
Screened Sawdust 6lbs.4.8oz
Water as needed (20 lbs )
Mix Proportion represents 10% less sawdust then mix No. 1

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 3
Date to be set
Plainsman Red Earth Clay 44lbs.
Screened Sawdust 5lbs. 9.6oz
Water as needed (20 lbs )
Mix proportion represents 20% less sawdust than mix No. 1.

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 4
Date to be set
Plainsman Red Earth Clay 44lbs.
Screened Sawdust 7lbs. 11.2oz
Water as needed (20 lbs )
Mix Proportion represents 10% more sawdust then mix No. 1

Ceramic Water Filter Test Batch No. 5
Date to be set
Plainsman Red Earth Clay 44lbs.
Screened Sawdust 8lbs. 6.4oz
Water as needed (20 lbs )
Mix Proportion represents 20% more sawdust then mix No. 1

Technorati Tags : ,