Talk:Hydraulic ram

I have added a lot of links and improved the structure of this article, but there is still more to be done:

Can someone get the image working (I've had a couple of attempts, but don't really understand how they work yet).
The operating sequence could do with reformating also, as its not easy to follow at the moment. I expect that getting the image working will aid in this.

Chris Thryduulf 00:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

64.136.49.228 screwed the page up, it's OK again now 213.51.209.230 20:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This image makes more sense to me: [1] - Omegatron 01:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Matlab Morris: I think the image is incorrect; the pressure vessel needs to be placed upstream of the delivery valve, since, as the wording explains, its purpose is to absorb the shock of the hammer, and make the flow through the delivery valve smoother... I think... (3/8/06)

No, I think the diagram is correct. All the descriptions I have read say that the water goes through the check valve and then in to the pressure vessel. If it were the other way round, then the check valve would not stop the pressure vessel from blowing water back to where it came from. --Heron 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

This video (made back in the 1980s by a New Zealand company) has a pretty good description of how the rampump works, including a nice animated diagram. Also great footage of New Zealand Farmers in the traditional black shirt, shorts and gumboots! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Z-idnIM6M

Possibly a better explanation that the current video. Also I know both Owen Williamson (the original designer) and Kevin Smith (the current manufacturer) so I can possibly persuade them to relicense the video under GFDL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.45.180 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Copyright

I dunno what to do about this, but the page at http://www.meribah-ram-pump.com/principles.aspx?mn=2&sm=2-0 seems to copy parts of this page word for word. Is there a possible copyright issue about them copying wikipedia or wikipedia copying them? 71.227.195.32 (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the text in the article evolved more or less gradually, and the part in question was in the current form by about Aug. 2008. The Meribah page has a diagram and the text pretty well matching, and a copyright data of 2008. It sure looks like Meribah copied WP. I've asked the user who uploaded the image, just to be sure, but it looks pretty clear. There's an example of a letter to send to them at Wikipedia:Standard_GFDL_violation_letter. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of an older version of the file (now deleted for some reason, I think only administrators can see it). That version was wrong as far as the diagram is concerned, so Sonett72 edited it and the result is what you can see today. However, I have certainly created the original version from scratch, and I am almost positive Sonett subsequently edited my version because they look virtually identical as far as the presentation goes. So, in short, Wikipedia has certainly originated the diagram in that article you're talking about. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--that makes it pretty clear cut. Now does someone want to send that letter?Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boost converter analogy

I'm going to add back in the boost converter analogy, with a high-quality peer-reviewed citation that supports it. The quote from that source, which I won't include in the article, is "its structure parallels that of the boost converter making it a hydraulic analog."

If you have objections to the specific analogy, please describe them here or add them to the article if you can find a source. If you have objections to the hydraulic analogy in general, you might add that content to that article and link a warning from here to there. I would comment that the analogy can be abused, but so can ohm's law. We shouldn't withhold information only because it can be abused. But perhaps you have a different objection. Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't mind me, I just like a "see also" to have some relevance to the topic. Could we also put a "see also" link to Alice in Wonderland in here, it's a really good book and I don't doubt that many readers of hydraulic ram would find it entertaining. It's got sweet Fanny Adams to do with the subject, of course. Just because it's an "analogy" made in a peer-reviewed publication doesn't mean it's any help to the proverbial bright 12-year-old who's trying to figure out a topic. *HOW* does this analogy help explain the topic? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that it doesn't help this article much, but it is a reasonable addition (in reverse) to boost converter. There are few people who are looking at hydraulic rams and even know what a boost converter is, rather more struggling to understand a boost converter who might benefit from a hydraulic analogy (and for once, one that's actually useful).

As to snipe hunts, isn't that what we're here for? 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--that is useful, and this article is already referenced from the boost converter article.Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your objection, Wtshymanski. Here's why knowing about the boost-converter analogy is useful for someone who's trying to understand ram pumps. First, if the reader happens to be familiar with boost converters, than it's a great shortcut to understand ram pumps through the analogy. Second, there is lots written about boost converters that can help people understand ram pumps, and perhaps more importantly, develop improved designs. The paper I cited goes through this in a lot more detail, and uses the insight derived from the lumped model of the ram pump to develop an improved ram design. Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely unpersuaded. in spite of any mathematical similarities that paper may disclose (and which I'm not willing to pay $25 to read), once you descend from the abstract mathematical regions you're not going to find any useful parallels. One is water, you see, the other is electricity - only a mathemetician would find these analogous. An analogy is only sensible if it's useful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if there's a way I can share the copy of the article I have with you without violating copyright. But in any case, if you do read it, you'll find that there are useful parallels and the authors, in addition to having fun with the abstract math (you are right that there is some of that), actually use the concepts to design a better ram pump. And even if the analogy were not useful, there's no criterion for inclusion on WP that requires that information be useful. In this case, it is useful, so it's a slam dunk, but even if it were not--if it were only mathematically beautiful--that would be OK too. Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By golly, next time someone asks me how a hydraulic ram works, I'll give him a withering glance and say "Dummy - it's just like a boost converter, haven't you noticed the beautiful mathematics?". I was under the misimpression that Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia - and I don't usually think of encyclopedias as repositories of useless information. Now if you'll excuse me, I must carry on with my feature-class article List of stops on the 48 McMeans Express bus route which I'm sure you'll agree is information about as useful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if it has the same form of differential equation it is an analog.Wdl1961 (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent on acceptability of paid content as reliable sources

As the note currently stands, it's a one-liner with two relevant and useful wls and one unhelpful reference (paid site). It's enough to WP:V it by reading the abstract, but would fail WP:EL as the accessible unpaid content isn't sufficient explanation. This seems like a reasonable compromise between mentioning this relationship (which is after all interesting, just a bit of a niche interest that's irrelevant to most readers) and bloating the article with an WP:UNDUE section.

If it's possible to do so, I'd like to see this section expanded to describe just what design improvement was made to the ram as a result of this. This is claimed to be the justification for this analogy being in the ram article, yet the benefit gained was unclear.

It might (copyright permitting) be possible to use the ref to write a section in detail, explaining the correspondences in detail and showing how the technique was aapplied to the ram's benefit. That would belong in the analogy article, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, let's be careful about what's in the WP guidelines--WP:V does not require that content be accessible at no charge. See Wikipedia:V#Access_to_sources. And the comment about failing WP:EL isn't relevant: as stated in the lead of WP:EL, "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me: It works for WP:V because the abstract alone would support this, without requiring access to the paid content. However it wouldn't be acceptable as a WP:EL, as the useful part of it to that level isn't accessible. As it's used here, it's fine. As a larger section (which would be WP:UNDUE here), it might become problematic. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did misunderstand part of what you said. I apologize. I see that we agree that WP:EL is irrelevant. We also agree that it works for WP:V. However, it is wrong to assert that that is only because the abstract is sufficient. WP:V does not require that we rely only on free web content. This is quite explicit in Wikipedia:V#Access_to_sources. A larger section would probably be undue here, but there would be nothing wrong with the use of paid content to support either a larger section or the brief mention. Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" it is wrong to assert that that is only because the abstract is sufficient. " Fortunately I claimed no such thing. "the abstract alone would support this" means that it's acceptable as the abstract is there, it doesn't mean that it couldn't be acceptable for other reasons too (paid content being acceptable to WP:V anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to main discussion

So what part of the boost converter catches all the spilled electrons? A hydraulic ram wastes a great deal of the water that flows through it...what does the analogy say about that?

And how is a discontinuous boost converter like a hydraulic ram? In this "hydraulic analogy", is volts or amps like PSI or GPM? The analogy guys are never clear which variables match to which....--Wtshymanski (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "spilled electrons" give up their energy as heat. There's relatively little of it, as the losses in capacitors are less than in air springs, and the "valves" are more efficient too. Voltage is considered analogous to pressure, current to mass flow rate. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a boost converter, when the active switch is on, there is current flow through the inductor to ground. That is analogous to the phase of operation of the ram pump when the "waste valve" is open--the dumping of water at zero pressure is analogous to dumping electrons to ground (zero voltage). (As Andy says, voltage is analogous to pressure.) So I guess the answer to the question of which part catches the spilled electrons is that it's the ground wire. A ram pump normally operates in what power converter folks call "boundary mode"--right on the edge between continuous conduction and discontinuous conduction. You could make a discontinuous mode ram pump if you used a solenoid valve for the waste valve instead of a poppet valve. Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wtshmanski's latest contribution to this discussion was entered as a comment in the edit summary rather than on the talk page, so I'm reproducing it here:

I still don't think this "see also" is relevant to the article. Put it at hydraulic analogy if it must exist, then it won't mislead readers so much)

Thanks for the concise and direct statement of your opinion on this. My opinion is that we've answered all your objections. In addition, the consensus is for inclusion, counting the original editor who added it, Andy, and myself, so I think that it's appropriate to leave it in, unless a different consensus develops on this talk page. Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.' This discussion is in the great tradition of Wikipedia discussions. It is incorrect to include this wild-goose-chase of a "see also" in this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(particularly to Wtshymanski) This side-note is accurate and useful to some, but its relevance to the majority is certainly questionable. Can we agree on that much? (i.e. there's no issue of questioning its veracity).

It's one sentence and a ref, no more, hiding off amongst the footnotes. If this is a wild-goose chase (I thought we were hunting snipe anyway?), then it's a very small one and I can't see the harm of it, to many people, or as a major distraction. I would be against it if it were much bigger, but as it is I find it difficult to credit that it could have an adverse effect. Remember to view the finished article too, not the raw wikitext: a multi-line ref can look huge in source code (and possibly WP:UNDUE), but far better proportioned on the completed page. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also replying to Wtshymanski: Right--we shouldn't decide the outcome based on a vote, but should attempt to settle our differences through rational discussion. There seem to be two issues:

Is the hydraulic analogy technically valid for this system? You've raised some doubts--we've answered those specifics--and we have a peer reviewed journal paper, which is pretty much the gold standard for a reliable source, backing it up. Meanwhile we have no sources implying skepticism about the validity of the analogy. So without some new information or arguments, I think that's settled.
Is this relevant to the article, or helpful to enough readers of the article to merit inclusion? This question comes down to a judgement call as to the focus of the article and the interest of likely readers, rather than something that we can settle by examining reliable sources. I tend to agree with Andy that it is a minority of readers who would find it useful, but also that the positioning as one of a list of three items on a see also list is pretty unobjectionable even if few reader will want to click on that link.

I'm not sure whether the "foolish" and "wild-goose-chase" arguments are primarily directed at the technical validity of the argument or at the relevance and potential for interest among the readers. Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green and Carter

They patented *a* hydraulic ram. If I believe our article, the idea is much older than that company. I don't think a link to their current catalog is appropriate, any more than we'd link generalelectric.com with out further qualification in the article incandescent light bulb. Wikipeida is not a directory or shopping guide. The link should come out. -Wtshymanski (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worse and worse. The company's own web site is not a reliable reference by definition. The claim is a little weak - they bought a company that bought a company that 100 years before obtained a patent. Borrowed thunder, much. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you anti-link crusade is going to delete them as a reference now as well?

My heart sinks whenever I see one of these vast deletions of links. Not because I'm in favour of random links to anywhere and everywhere, but because I don't believe that an editor can make a competent edit that deletes so many separate pieces of content in one go, giving each one the appropriate level of consideration. WP:CRUSADEs get wrapped up in the joy of deletion, not thinking about each EL as an individual.

I assume you're not in the UK. If you were in the UK, and you'd had any dealing with hydraulic rams, you'd know of G&C already. They may or may not have invented various parts of the ram, they're certainly the inheritors of the past ownership of some important patents on them, but mostly they're important as the first and most obvious place to go and buy a new ram (or if you have more money than baler twine, to repair an old one) today. The analogy isn't with GE the lightbulb maker, it's with the Pennsylvania Buggy Whip Co., who not only invented the left-handed buggy whip all those years ago, but are now the last buggy whip makers left in business. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, external links tend toward the fecal end of the scale as far as quality goes. Any external link is only here on sufferance - because we can't get some copyrighted material that otherwise greatly extends and expands on the article content. Real encyclopedias don't outsource content.

It's hardly a crusade, more housekeeping. The subject company already had their catalog site linked once and didn't need a second link. The Wikipedia way to solve this is to find a reliable independant third-party external publication, saying that so-and-so is an ancient and respected maker of hydraulic rams - so far a quick Google Books search is not turning up anything notable about our favorite maker of hydraulic rams. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[only] "because we can't get some copyrighted material" - untrue. One reason, not the only one. Sometimes a link is to content that we can't have, sometimes the link itself is content because the web presence is worth linking to. It's encyclopedic to refer out to G&C's site, simply because it's G&C's site and G&C are themselves worthy of a link.

Secondly, you seem to think that an EL becomes redundant if there's also a reference to the same site. Again that's untrue and not supported by policy (of course, feel free to cite it, but please a bit more specific than "WP:EL"). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd cite "common sense" but I've already been told once this week that Wikipedia doesn't work by common sense. It's a redundant link. A company having a Web site is about as notable as a company having a postal address...the hot-dog cart across the street has a Web site. The company isn't even notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article . As above, we would need to find a publication that talks about the history of hydraulic rams and Green and Carter, not just promotional links to their Web site. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons that I think the extra link is not needed can be found at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided numbers 1,4,5,14,15,and 19. Other than common sense, of course, which is of course not a Wikipedia policy.--Wtshymanski (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find only one reference to a "Vacher" pump, it's on http://www.greenandcarter.com/main/about_us.htm, and on their main page (http://www.greenandcarter.com/index.htm) they claim the Vulcan pump is and always has been their only product. Should it be removed? Hgbanana123 (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsation engine

more information : http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=1&size=1&id=pt.1775.x.x.65.x.277

HH 62.153.13.108 (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I am new to Wikipedia, so hope I get this right. I haven't read the files about how to edit, but will do so.

The reason the new cycle starts is a bit more complicated, but very useful to know about. The waste valve usually does not open against the static head. Rather, there is a pressure wave (pulse) that travels back up the supply pipe till it reaches the source, then returns as a suction pulse. This is clear from the fact that the snifter valve sucks in air just as the waste valve re-opens. It is in fact sucked open by the suction pulse. This understanding has lots of implications for the length/smoothness, etc. of the supply pipe, things which are known from experience, but not often understood.

Secondly, the is misleading to say the drive pipe must be inelastic. The popular definition of elastic, meaning rubber like, does convey what the pipe should not be like, but the technical definition of elastic is " In physics, elasticity is a physical property of materials which return to their original shape after they are deformed." (from the linked definition). Steel is more elastic than rubber by this definition. For low loss in the ram, the pipe should be highly elastic, that is it should return to its original shape without much loss. I would be glad to correspond with any interested parties about the above two issues. -John JNRSTANLEY (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

I took the liberty of modifying the main article before I noticed your related note here. My reason for modifying the main article is that a reflection of the waste valve hammer pulse returning from the drive source does not "suck open" the waste valve, nor drive the snifter. If it did, the delivery phase would be cut extremely short because the speed of sound in water is ~1500m/s. There is indeed a vacuum or "suction pulse" involved, but it is induced in the pump itself when the delivery valve snaps shut on the momentarily reversed drive flow at the end of the delivery phase. - regards Chris Cross (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, Sorry I missed this comment before starting a new topic at the end of the the Talk page. Perhaps by now you have read my comments there and also perhaps even some of the added references. It is in fact the arrival of the vacuum pulse that pulls the delivery valve shut, (and the waste valve open) rather than the other way round. Yes, this can happen pretty fast with short steel pipes. With long PVC pipes it can be up to a second. With short steel pipes, multiple trips up and down the supply pipe may be needed, but this is a complication I chose not to include. In that case, the up and down trips continue until the delivery phase has completed enough to allow it to end.

Many sites refer to this whole process as a "rebound" effect. While not exactly wrong, this is just too simple to allow one to appreciate the need for a supply smooth pipe where water hammer pulses, (pressure and suction) can propagate without getting distorted. When they do get distorted, due to violations of the rules for the supply pipe, the ram won't run.

If after reading the Warwick paper you can suggest some other wording that is just complicated enough to be accurate, but not so much as to be overwhelming, I would be open to any suggestion.

JNRSTANLEY (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HYDRAULIC RAM ARTICLE

Hello, Just read your article on Hydraulic Rams and in particular the outlined history. We feel that the history provided in the Wikipedia would not be complete without listing our Billabong Hydraulic Water Rams (BBHWRs) there. For your information the BBHWRs have been introduced to the Australian and Pacific Region markets by Messrs. John Danks and Son in 1855. We have on record various Testimonials from BBHWRs users, each confirming that they have been using the BBHWRs for various periods of time between 50 - 100 years. We have a testimonial on record, where in one case a 3rd generation farmer in Queensland has confirmed that his family has been using the BBHWRs for over 100 years!

Our company has been manufacturing the BVBHWRs for the last 28 years, after we have purchased the BBHWRs business from Messrs. John Danks and Son Pty. Ltd. in 1986. Our BBHWRs are operating, apart from Australia also extensively in the Pacific Region - i.e. PNG, Solomon Islands, Fiji, New Hebridies, Philippines etc.

Would you be so kind and provide us with your email address, where we will be able to send you a more detailed BBHWRs documentation? The purpose of this communication is that we wish to request Wikipedia, that your Rams History Section will be updated by also listing the Billabong Hydraulic Water Rams in there. Kind regards, Manfred

Misal Technologies Pty. Ltd. Manfred Mayboehm M.Sc. (Elec.) CP. Eng.. M.I.E. Aust. Managing Director ______________

Ph: 61 3 9876 5222 Fax: 61 3 9876 5333 Email: misaltech@bigpond.com

Postal Address: P.O.Box 510 Ringwood VIC. 3134 Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misaltech (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions in literature- SF and other

Brief nod here to Tom Godwin's story "Mother of Invention". Astounding 1953, anthologised in Spectrum 5. MarkMLl (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papa pump

Is all the text about the Papa pump really relevant? Seems more like an advertisement to me. --5.146.48.149 (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

covering Priestly's hydraulic ram, which is different than "standard" hydraulic ram described to date

Hi, i've added mention of Priestly's Hydraulic Ram, a new article which I started up, into this article. It is a different kind of thing, involving water mixed with air dropping into a sealed reservoir. User:MB seems to understand it a bit better than me, and has much further developed the Priestly's Hydraulic Ram article. Anyhow, this device has no moving parts, and is not a "cyclic pump" with moving parts. This article from its origin has always defined a hydraulic ram to involve a cyclic pump.

Hey, i am not sure how this should be handled here. It's a matter of definition of what is a hydraulic ram fundamentally. If Priestly's version, and some similar others now referenced in its article, are not what this article wants to call a hydraulic ram, then they still should be mentioned at least in a "see also" type way. However it seems reasonable to consider these to be hydraulic rams, I think, because they involve using high water pressure to force water up .... isn't that "hydraulic" and isn't that "ramming"?

Pinging several past editors here: @Wtshymanski, Andy Dingley, and Ccrrccrr: Hey y'all did good work here in the past! I hope you can help absorb this complication! cheers, --Doncram (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same as a trompe? It could be linked to that article as an instance. I've not read much about trompes so I dont know if they are routinely described as "hydraulic rams". --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

trompe-ish, in part. I still don't see how it works, the Priestly article needs a diagram! --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Priestly and Papa

From the description, the Priestly pump sounds much closer to a Pulser pump than the "hydralic ram". That is, it uses a Trompe to power an Airlift pump. I'm not a civil engineer, so I only added a note saying that it might be different. I'll leave it to an expert to finish the change.

I agreed with 5.146.48.149 that the reference to the Papa Pump felt like adspeak. I kept the parts I thought were relevant: the patent citation, the mention of venturi effect, and the image showing the valve arrangement. Mdnahas (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicous Reversion

My edit was reverted by Kernow1964, with minimal comments. The same account reverted a previous attempt to delete mention of the "Papa Pump".

Kernow1964 uploaded the image of the internals of the Papa Pump and claimed it was their own work. The account has no description on Wikipedia. A websearch says that that username may be connected to the email address ian.lamble@btinternet.com. Kernow appears to be the Cornish word for Cornwall. The Papa Pump is produced by Water Powered Technologies, a company headquartered in Cornwall. While not conclusive, this feels suspicious.

If you are Kernow1964, please say if you have any connection to the Papa Pump and please explain the reversion.

Mdnahas (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found that Kernow1964 had edited the Ball Lightning wikipedia page with an account of Philip Selwyn, without any references. Philip Selwyn is the inventor of the Papa Pump. I'm presuming that Kernow1964 is either Selwyn or works for the company producing the Papa Pump. If that's true, the edits would be a violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. I've warned Kernow1964 and will reinstate my edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kernow1964 Mdnahas (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on my reversion to the explanation of how the vacuum pulse develops

The speed of sound in water is not relevant. The speed of a water hammer pulse depends on the characteristics of the pipe. As the pulse travels along, the pipe expands, then contracts. Look up formulas for water hammer propagation speed. In addition, the water hammer understanding makes it clear why the supply pipe must be uniform and smooth with no sharp bends or restrictions. If you use a long PVC pipe, you can actually see the pluse move up the pipe, (much slower in PVC than in steel). And then you see it move back down. The reopen does not occur until it arrives. In steel pipes, as Clemson research shows there may be multiple reflections up and down the pipe until the pulse goes negative enough (vacuum) the open valve. I believe this understanding is important so that the reason for the requirements on the supply pipe make sense.

I will try to find the relevant Clemson U. Documents and repair the links. Meanwhile, please read some sources on water hammer in pipes before you come to an alternate conclusion. Thanks.

JNRSTANLEY (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to a Clemson U. Document that describes the pulse traveling up the supply pipe. However it is not as complete as some of the documents that that article references. (it also lists some personal communications from myself that was the result of some correspondence with them in 2013. I MAY be able to dig out some of that correspondence if anyone isn't convinced after reading the documents referenced, especially https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/research/grouplist/structural/dtu/pubs/tr/lift/rptr15/tr15.pdf

JNRSTANLEY (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Impulse pump" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Impulse pump and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 13#Impulse pump until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 08:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]