Laserfiche WebLink
<br />., <br /> <br /> <br />001872 <br /> <br />hexadecanol, dodecanol, and octadecanol applied either in solution, <br /> <br />using several diHerent solvents, or in dispersed form. Four types <br /> <br />of dispersing equipment were tested and intensi've efforts were <br /> <br />directed toward maintaining.a film over the ponds'.. . Savings in eva- <br /> <br />po ration were calculated! using energy budget or ma-ss transfer <br /> <br />methods to determine what the evaporation would have been without <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the film. The- maximum reducti.on in evaporation for a 2-week <br /> <br />period was 2.7 percent, but in most of the tests extending over <br /> <br />several days the savings ranged from 7 to 12 percent, and in one <br /> <br />test there was no discernible savings. The investigators concluded <br /> <br />that at present the economics of suppressing evaporation in stock <br /> <br />tanks is questionable because of the great difficulty in maintaining <br /> <br />a film on the water surface. <br /> <br />These tests were conducted under carefully controlled condi- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />tions, and the savings obtained probably exceed by a considerable <br /> <br />amount those which w.ould be expected under .ordinary field opera- <br /> <br />tions. Based on' the i?xperience of these investigators, the c.onclu- <br />( <br /> <br />sion seems inescapable that until additional progress has' been made <br /> <br />in applying .and maintaining the film or until new methods have been <br /> <br />developed. there is little reason to believe that savings -in evapora- <br /> <br />tion from stock ponds located in the Pacific Southwest area will <br /> <br />justify the cost and effort of using evaporati.on suppressants. <br />51 <br />