Brandon Whitmore Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Hi guys, I'm in the process of replacing my deep well jet pump with a submersible unit. Is submersible wire really necessary, or can I get away with using UF-B? I'm not concerned with oil/ gas resistance.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Hi guys, I'm in the process of replacing my deep well jet pump with a submersible unit. Is submersible wire really necessary, or can I get away with using UF-B? I'm not concerned with oil/ gas resistance.... I can't think of a good reason why UF wouldn't work. But it seems like it would be a pain in the butt to install and service and, the last time I checked, it was more expensive than submersible pump cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Whitmore Posted June 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Thanks Jim, I'm just a cheapskate. I've got some UF sitting around...... From what I'm seeing on-line, UF seems to run around .50/.60 a foot, while submersible wire is around $1.00 a foot. PS: The western US Maxitrol rep. who just so happens to live in Tigard sounded interested in teaching a seminar for inspectors. If you're interested, I'll get you his number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kogel Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I have bought a few submersibles and they came pre-wired with over 100 feet of wire attached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Booth Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I have bought a few submersibles and they came pre-wired with over 100 feet of wire attached. ...........maybe it's a regional thing - I've bought a half dozen submersibles(new) over the years and never have seen one with more than a couple of feet of pigtail wire......Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjr6550 Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 The fact that I have never seen UF used for this purpose concerns me. Is UF actually rated to be submerged in water for a long-term basis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Thanks Jim, I'm just a cheapskate. I've got some UF sitting around...... From what I'm seeing on-line, UF seems to run around .50/.60 a foot, while submersible wire is around $1.00 a foot. PS: The western US Maxitrol rep. who just so happens to live in Tigard sounded interested in teaching a seminar for inspectors. If you're interested, I'll get you his number. Please do. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 The fact that I have never seen UF used for this purpose concerns me. Is UF actually rated to be submerged in water for a long-term basis? It's listed for use in wet locations, which includes "locations subject to saturation with water." I think you don't see it used this way because it seems like it would be a pain in the butt to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I don't think 'subject to saturation with water' and 'submerged' are the same thing. I wouldn't use it in a well. Just doesn't seem right. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjbrown2 Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I don't know how much the physics gets into this but you can see that normally UF is going to be buried a few feet underground and if said ground is water saturated the max static head you would expect is a few feet. A well, on the other hand, could subject the UF up to two orders of magnitude (100x) the static head on the UF. Ever how much pressure is a factor in driving the water molecules into/through the polymer structure of the UF as opposed to the purpose designed submersible cable is the question that seems relevant to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector57 Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Not being all that familiar with wells, this may not be a real concern, but would the stiffness of UF cable no be a major pain to deal with in a well application? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 How deep is deep. There's a reason there's a difference between UF and submersible wire. I think I'd spend the extra .40 a foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I don't know how much the physics gets into this but you can see that normally UF is going to be buried a few feet underground and if said ground is water saturated the max static head you would expect is a few feet. A well, on the other hand, could subject the UF up to two orders of magnitude (100x) the static head on the UF. Ever how much pressure is a factor in driving the water molecules into/through the polymer structure of the UF as opposed to the purpose designed submersible cable is the question that seems relevant to me. Ever seen the wire leads coming off the pump? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Other opinions: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=138273 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I no longer think I'd spend the extra .40 cents a foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I no longer think I'd spend the extra .40 cents a foot. Cheapskate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Whitmore Posted June 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Thanks for the information and discussion. I'd read that other forum discussion prior to posting, but wanted more feedback. Jim, I sent you an e-mail from work today; hopefully you got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Yup! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Thanks for the information and discussion. I'd read that other forum discussion prior to posting, but wanted more feedback. Jim, I sent you an e-mail from work today; hopefully you got it. Yes. I got it. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjbrown2 Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Jim: It looks like your cite clears it up for UF being Ok. Thanks The connections at the pump is not the condition I was concerned about. I was looking at the possible degradation of the dielectric strength of the insulation (both directly on the wires and any sheathing material) between two (or more) closely spaced conductors at different potentials. That possible degradation being a result of the 100x pressure driving water molecules into the polymer structures of cable not specifically designed for the application. We had to fight that battle decades ago in the communications cable field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Just realized the NM and UF have the same insulating material on the wires, only the sheathing material is different, UF having greater UV tolerance. So what difference does it make whether UF or NM is used for water wells? There's no sunlight inside the well casing. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Just realized the NM and UF have the same insulating material on the wires, only the sheathing material is different, UF having greater UV tolerance. So what difference does it make whether UF or NM is used for water wells? There's no sunlight inside the well casing. Marc NM would be poor only because it has paper between the conductors. The paper would absorb water and get nasty. In UF cable, the sheath completely surrounds the conductors and provides some protection against damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Jim: It looks like your cite clears it up for UF being Ok. Thanks The connections at the pump is not the condition I was concerned about. I was looking at the possible degradation of the dielectric strength of the insulation (both directly on the wires and any sheathing material) between two (or more) closely spaced conductors at different potentials. That possible degradation being a result of the 100x pressure driving water molecules into the polymer structures of cable not specifically designed for the application. We had to fight that battle decades ago in the communications cable field. I understand, but the insulation on the wires in UF cables is pretty darned good. Also, while wells are often quite deep, they're usually not that far below the level of the water. A well might be 200 feet deep, but there might only be water in the lower 2 or 3 feet of the casing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.