On the autumn of 2017, we had some meetings with the managers of the MIARA ski resort in San Vigilio di Marebbe with the aim of verifying whether the properties of the technology we propose could give any benefit in the production of snow.

The topic is of great interest because it is obvious to everyone that producing artificial snow is very expensive and being able to obtain a greater quantity of snow or better snow, with the same amount of water and with the same times, quickly translates into money saved .

Another aspect concerns the maintenance of the plants after the season: a snow cannon is a complex and expensive equipment, preserving it from maintenance and making the interventions less frequent means saving time / personnel and extending the life of the cannon.

Our technology wants to prevent the formation of limestone and, in the application under consideration, would like to obtain:

– Water misting nozzles freer to be limestone

– More free nozzles mean less dripping, a larger volume of sprayed water and therefore more snow
– The snow produced is better, less wet, and therefore has a longer life

Another problem that is found is the rust that is formed in the metal pipes and that when disconnected contributes to the filling of the nozzles or reduce the section: our technology tends to detach the rust, then cover with a hard oxide the surface of the pipes avoiding the formation of further oxidations.

Anyone who operates snowmaking systems knows that reality is much more complex than the theory because the elements that come into play are the most diverse: from wind to sun exposure, in essence from the microclimate that characterizes the environment of each individual cannon or lance; it is not easy to make a scientific evaluation of the effects on the quality of the snow.

I

t is therefore decided to carry out a test on two different guns positioned below on a line of 24 guns about 3200 meters long.

It should be noted that previously the plant operators had invested in magnetic anti-limestone systems, noting benefits, which is possible considering that the flow of water is continuous, in any case obviously not satisfactory if we were now evaluating our technology; moreover, the action of a magnetic or electromagnetic, of any brand, is much weaker than the action of an AQUARING.

In addition the chosen magnetic system had an invasive installation.

We therefore decide to install:

– An AQUARING SP
– A AQUARING VCA
The choice of the two models was determined by the fact that the signal access was different in the two systems: more immediate in the case of the SP, more dispersed in the case of the VCA (chosen therefore more powerful to have indicatively the same signal on the cannon) .

After the winter season, we set an appointment for the opening of the guns and then to assess if there had been a positive effect and possibly compute the scope.

Once the cannons were open, the amount of limestone was minimal and friable, there was no rust, but, what was expected, a patina of black magnetite to protect the surface of the pipes.

The sprayers were free from limescale but this aspect had already been evaluated and appreciated by the maintenance manager during the operation of the snowmaking system.

In the end the comment was: we have finally found what is right for us.

In the course of the discussion, another problem has emerged: water contains an important quantity of materials that over time settle on the surface of the adduction pipe, for which they want to try to dissolve / reduce this scale which eventually leads to a reduction in the flow rate .

It is therefore decided to carry out a six-month installation of an AQUARING VCA on the 225 mm main line, photograph the interior and postpone the verification in March.

The test is still ongoing.

In the picture above you can see in the foreground the ferrites and above, hanging and inside two plastic boxes, to protect them further from the water (the Professional models are waterproof), the two components that make up the VCA.