Who actually has the Most Powerful Snowmaking System?

[bobbutts]

Interesting question, so many variables involved that it's impossible to really answer. Here's my summary:
Air Power - Most important for Marginal temps
Water Power - Most important max capacity with ideal temps
Gun Type and placement - Affects both of the above
Geography and Philosophy - What are the goals for the system and environmental factors involved.

 

[Rogman]

True, but the most powerful isn't a very specific statement. Where are you measuring power? Sure, you can measure it as shaft power output of compressors/pumps/motors, the easiest to calculate given the fact that fan motors, air compressors, and pumps are rated for power output. Going in the completely useless direction, you could even include the rate of heat generation due to system inefficiencies, which gives the diesel air compressors a further "advantage" over the electric fans given the lower efficiency of a diesel simple cycle engine to a combined cycle power plant.

Better would be to look at the useful power output of the fans, compressors and pumps; my guess is that the air compressors used in a traditional system are slightly more efficient than fans, but both would be in the mid-90% efficiency range, so not much change. Then you could adjust for the power done against the system by gravity, equalizing the systems with respect to any advantage gained by elevating the snowmaking pond or size of the mountain.

All of these are fairly useless calculations of energy. The most useful I can think of is the rate of heat transfer of water to air after exiting the snow making apparatus but before reaching the ground. As the heat of fusion is much greater than the heat loss over the range of temperatures relevant in snowmaking, we can approximate power as mass flow times heat of fusion. Given heat of fusion is a constant and the density of water is nearly constant, this means that the power of a system, under this definition, can be calculated solely by the flow rate of water in the system. Of course, this definition is still not complete, as the water flow in the system is set based inputs from operators, decisions made based on things like wetbulb temperatures, static temperature of the air exiting the nozzle, hang time in the air, etc.

But all these definitions (and others I didn't mention) allow for the possibility of many different mountains claiming, correctly so, that they have the most powerful snowmaking system.

Class dismissed.

So 80 calories per gram of snow. Sorry, not buying it, and I don't think you do, either. The whole point of Low E is how much of the power you need can you extract from other sources, i.e. evaporation and air temperature. By this logic, at 10 degrees you don't need any power at all....

 

[mondeo]

This is solid theory. Can we get a calculation for work per volume of snow vs. wet bulb temp? That would be super awesome.

Sure. W=VρΔHfus, where V=f(Twb,...)

So 80 calories per gram of snow. Sorry, not buying it, and I don't think you do, either. The whole point of Low E is how much of the power you need can you extract from other sources, i.e. evaporation and air temperature. By this logic, at 10 degrees you don't need any power at all....

You completely missed the point. The question was who has the most powerful snowmaking system. The answer is wholly dependent on where you define the power of the system. As skiers, what we see is the volume of snow produced, measured in acres-ft (which I prefer over acres-in.) So in order to define power, as we care about snowmaking, the most useful definition is the last one that I mentioned, and is what is important in expanding terrain offerings quickly. And if you have the "right" set-up, at 10 degrees you wouldn't need any power generated from conventional means to make snow - but you would need a storage tank elevated some ways above the surface you need snow on (you'd need gravity-fed misters and then some hang time.) It would be ridiculous.

From a financial perspective, what is important is not the power of the system, but the energy consumed per volume of snow made. This isn't power, it's more closely related to efficiency.

 

[Newpylong]

You're missing the point. Of course efficiency is important in a snowmaking system, to every resort including Killington. Why do you think Killington has invested in fan guns, HDK rangers, raticks, and various tower guns? So when optimal temps do roll around they can make snow with less energy used.

However, it is being shown right now that efficiency should not come at the expense of capablity. In the search for better efficiency, Mount Snow has seemingly given up the capablity to produce snow at very marginal temperatures. Killington and Sunday River, OTOH, have retained that capablity, and budgeted for it. They are spending lots and lots of money right now to be open, and will hopefully recoup some of it over this holiday period and in follow on business.

I would like to know where you came up with the idea that the fan guns are not capable of producing snow compared to air/water systems in marginal temperatures? Are you making this stuff up as you go? Two years ago when Peak's bought Mount Snow and opened up first in Vermont, they admitted the only reason they were able to open with as much terrain at that date was because of the fan guns. Everywhere you read from the mountains that have invested in fan guns, they praise their output in marginal temperatures as well as ideal temperatures. Admittedly they have the highest output at 25 degrees or less, but there seems to be no grounds for your claims.

 

[Rambo]

I would like to know where you came up with the idea that the fan guns are not capable of producing snow compared to air/water systems in marginal temperatures? Are you making this stuff up as you go? Two years ago when Peak's bought Mount Snow and opened up first in Vermont, they admitted the only reason they were able to open with as much terrain at that date was because of the fan guns. Everywhere you read from the mountains that have invested in fan guns, they praise their output in marginal temperatures as well as ideal temperatures. Admittedly they have the highest output at 25 degrees or less, but there seems to be no grounds for your claims.

Fan guns struggle to make snow from 28 to 32 degrees. But air/water gun's can be adjusted to pump out more air in marginal higher temps. allowing snow to be made far superior to fan guns in the 25 to 32

 

[Newpylong]

Fan guns struggle to make snow from 28 to 32 degrees. But air/water gun's can be adjusted to pump out more air in marginal higher temps. allowing snow to be made far superior to fan guns in the 25 to 32

Understood, I think it's a given that fine tuning air and water output is a positive of air/water systems - but to suggest that Fan Guns are not capable of holding their own in marginal temps I do not believe to be true.

 

[ski63]

Mrs

I vote for Seven Springs.

It can be quite a spectacle. We went one year in the late 90's after a warm spell. They had every gun running for 18 hours. The temp went below 10. It was really loud so we got a
non-slope side room. The next morning every trail and every slope was covered and perfect when they opened at 9:00.

From a distance Seven Springs looks like it's own micro climate........just man made.

I count 1 big and 5 small ponds on Google Earth. I was my understanding that at low temp the gravity fed, pump assisted system can produce a lot of snow.

 

[Method9455]

But I know more about engineering than both of you combined.

This seems to be a claim made by many resorts.....so
Considering a Polecat fan gun has 20-25 hp of on board motors, I fail to see how 250 fan guns @ ~6000hp total is more powerful than Killington's 20+ giant air compressors at 16,260 hp total. Does Mount Snow have a bunch of air compressors?

Might want to look at this chart a few more times before you start claiming.

Much like power coming from the motor of a car is far different from the power where the rubber meets the road, the power (air + water) at the nozzle is a lot different from the total power in the system. That is what matters. If 7 springs avoids having to pump so much water around during snowmaking and Mount Snow avoids head loss from long air supply lines by having mini compressors on the fan guns, they can easily have more "power" where it counts even if they have less total HP in the system. A true comparison would be massively complicated and include not only HP measures but pipe lengths, efficiencies, and water supply.

 

[andrec10]

Huntah has the most powerful system, since the air leaks were fixed! Lets compare and see what they do before next weekend. They will need extra air with the marginal snowmaking temps and maybe some Snowmax for good measure...

 

[mondeo]

Much like power coming from the motor of a car is far different from the power where the rubber meets the road, the power (air + water) at the nozzle is a lot different from the total power in the system. That is what matters. If 7 springs avoids having to pump so much water around during snowmaking and Mount Snow avoids head loss from long air supply lines by having mini compressors on the fan guns, they can easily have more "power" where it counts even if they have less total HP in the system. A true comparison would be massively complicated and include not only HP measures but pipe lengths, efficiencies, and water supply.

In principle, you've echoed my post, but there are some issues. Head loss in in air lines is minuscule compared to the work compressing it, and conversely I'd guess the viscous loss in the water lines is small compared to the head loss. If you're looking specifically at marginal temperatures where air capacity is limiting, when comparing similar snowmaking equipment air compressor power is a reasonable proxy for snowmaking capacity. The problem is compressed air systems like K's depend on high pressure, using the expansion of the air to overcome adverse conditions, where fan guns depend more on hang time. The absolute temperature K3000s can make snow is higher, but just comparing motor power output between the two types of equipement isn't fair.

 

[Highway Star]

Great posts guys!

 

[Highway Star]

Bump.

.

 

[drjeff]

Okay HS, this might very well be the most irrelevant bump of the entire K thread bump-fest

 

[Glenn]

Okay HS, this might very well be the most irrelevant bump of the entire K thread bump-fest

Dear HS,

Fondly,
Glenn

 

[Newpylong]

agreed. stop bumping, who cares about old threads.

 

[Highway Star]

Bump for the whack jobs who think Crotched has the most powerful snowmaking system.

 

[mriceyman]

agreed. stop bumping, who cares about old threads.

Bahaha


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[Newpylong]

Timely right?

 

[yeggous]

Bump for the whack jobs who think Crotched has the most powerful snowmaking system.

Per acre I think Crotched wins hands down. They can completely resurface 100% of the mountain in 24 hours.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[deadheadskier]

It's true. Only 100 acres, but what they can do to that 100 acres in 24 hours bests anything I've witnessed elsewhere in New England.