Maybe its me, but from the pics of Mount Snow's fan guns blowing, it looks as if there is hardly any snow coming out of those things. When you look at like, Killington's guns blowing, it's a BOAT LOAD of snow coming out with more power. What is the deal with the fan guns?
I am not an expert on this but I believe because the fan guns make snow at higher temps that less snow is produced but when the temps get loer they can actually make more snow. Again I have never been a snowmaker so I can not attest to this!!
Posted: Nov 03, 2008 - 5:56 PM GMT Edited: Nov 03, 2008 - 5:57 PM GMT
Fan guns can without question put out much more snow by and large when compared to the traditional air/water system (like the older K2000 or K3000). Fan guns have what are known as rings (or banks) that can be opened or closed based upon temperature or desired snow quality. At more marginal temperatures you will want only one ring to be open (the actual nucleator ring) as Rocket suggests. At marginal temperatures like this a traditional air/water gun will likely do a bit better than a fan gun. However, drop the wet bulb temp by a few more degrees and there's little to no competition.
Perfectly said on the fan gun. I wonder if any of the four east areas that opened used the snowmaking additive Snowmax or Drift? They all seemed to open at a reaonably quick rate at marginal temps. That stuff is expensive, but really helps. I would think everyone used it for these first snowmaking efforts. Did anyone comment on the quality of snow that was offered for the weekend guests?
Fan guns can without question put out much more snow by and large when compared to the traditional air/water system (like the older K2000 or K3000). Fan guns have what are known as rings (or banks) that can be opened or closed based upon temperature or desired snow quality. At more marginal temperatures you will want only one ring to be open (the actual nucleator ring) as Rocket suggests. At marginal temperatures like this a traditional air/water gun will likely do a bit better than a fan gun. However, drop the wet bulb temp by a few more degrees and there's little to no competition.
-J
Not necessarily. Those Polecats are only rated around 167gpm, whereas Ratnik Snowgiant 5's will output over 260gpm. The biggest of the historical fanguns was the Hedco World Machine, which was capable of up to 750gpm. But you don't see anything like that anymore. Most fan guns are in the 75-200gpm range, and the majority of the a/w guns are in the 60-250gpm range. Just depends on the machines and the wet bulb. Of course, then you've got low-e a/w.
Fans may be more efficient at high temps from an energy standpoint, but they don't make nearly as much snow. Air/water is capable of outputting more snow at marginal temps due to the supercooling caused by expansion of compressed air.
Lots and lots and lots more to it, and I may write more after I fly home to VT tomorrow.
Fan guns, IMHO, have their place... but they're the biggest pain in the butt ever. Lots of maintenance, not mobile, not good at marginal temps (production-wise), etc., et. al., and such.
Perfectly said on the fan gun. I wonder if any of the four east areas that opened used the snowmaking additive Snowmax or Drift? They all seemed to open at a reaonably quick rate at marginal temps. That stuff is expensive, but really helps. I would think everyone used it for these first snowmaking efforts. Did anyone comment on the quality of snow that was offered for the weekend guests?
Useful when the water supply is pure and clean. If the water source already has a decent amount of high temp nucleators, then you're just blowing dollar bills out of the guns.