Discussion:
Ping Bud Frawley
Add Reply
Ted
2017-10-09 22:30:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
But I specified a centrifugal pump. Traditional.
But you refused to specify conditions.
Had all you need if teddie and atl knew pumps.
1) Duke has included the elevation or static head, but not the
friction head, which adds to the static head, and is the resistance
of the water or fluid
being pumped through the pipe filling the tank. The value of the friction head
depends on the flow rate, the discharge pipe size, and somewhat on the surface
smoothness of the pipe interior. The additional friction head could easily
increase the overall head from five to ten percent higher. In poorly engineered
cases or adverse operating conditions this could be much more. In all cases the
flow rate or volume pumped per unit time would be decreased.
Friction head?? In a tank 1000 feet in diameter???? I simplified the problem
to the lowest level of complexity possible.
Me: > >No, you did not specify how the tank was to be filled.
Duke: > Right, part of the reasonable.problem
A problem without sufficient data is next to meaningless.
Not what I'm trying to reveal.
Later in this post of yours, you speak of a 500' long pipe emptying
into the tank, so friction is involved.
No, I "laughed" at the idea of being concerned with line friction at 1000 ft
diameter.
No, you speak of a 500' length of pipe emptying into a tank. I suppose
you could say the pipe had a horizontal run, but you also said that
there were no tricks.
You brought up the pipe, not me. And I offered that this was really a good
idea. But, the pipe must run vertical, not horizontal.
You spoke of a pump rated at X gpm at P pressure. There is an
implication there that the pump is working against a 500' head.
Duke: > The tank is empty - no points.
Okay, but another part yet of unspecified conditions.
If you know pumps, you don't need more.
If the pump is working constantly against a 500' head, then this
necessitates a pipe discharging at the 500' level.
That's what I said ................if............what?
If you say that there is no friction head, possible in a 500' tall
tank being filled from within the tank, near the bottom,
Long before a pipe came into the picture.
So you want a teleporter instead of a pipe?
The pipe is a "reasonable" solution, but only if it is first filled with water
to provide the static head (vertical pipe mandatory).
then the pump operates starting against a minimal head, off the tank
bottom, and the flow rate would be much greater than the 1000 gpm you cite.
Duke: > Now you're getting hot.
I've brought this up multiple times. You refused to comment on it.
No, you didn't. Not to me anyway. You're still coming up short at
understanding.
<ok, got to run right now> Will continue later this morning.
2) Duke did not specify what the pressure is on the inlet to the
pump. If the pump is fed from a tank, particularly a tall one with a
base at the same level,
, the volume will increase, as the inlet-outlet pressure
differential decreases. The pump may be fed from another 500? tall
tank. Even if fed from a
separate tank, with fluid fifty feet above the pump inlet, the flow rate would
be significantly higher. And Duke has not specified the necessity of a NPSH, Net
Positive Suction Head, to avoid pump cavitation, and pump damage.
Duke: > >> I specifically stated that inlet conditions are not a
part of the problem.
You refused to clarify specific conditions.
Me: You did? Initially? Was this before or after you said that the
answer was figured mathematically? Or when you said the answer was not
computed mathematically? Show this, please.
Duke: > Yes, to simplify the discussio0n
Another refusal to clarify your problem.
And for a reasonably educated technician or mechanic, inlet conditions
are ___always___ part of the calculation.
Duke: >It would make it too complicated.
Me: For us, generally? No.
This problem was presented to our two clowns ted and atl. Your jumping in was
welcome.
3) For me, his most grievous mistake is the omission of how the
liquid is delivered into the tank being filled. Your calculations
work for delivering the water
to the top of the tank, but you did not specify where and how the
discharge would be. You do not include another possibility. Actually
a reasonably high probability.
Now, in the big picture, that would be a reasonable consideration. However, I
did specify attaching a centrifugal pump rated at 1000 gpm/500 ft
head to a vertical round tank 1000 ft in diameter and 500 ft tall, how long
will it take to fill the tank?
Insufficient evidence, by your own admission. Another refusal to clarify
specific conditions.
You still don't get it.
In starting to fill the tank of this height, why fill from the top?
At the start, this is ?lifting? water 500? in height, and then
letting it drop to the bottom of the tank.
Duke: > Kinda goofy way to do things, although I don't know anyone
would put a pump up
in the air. Of course, if the tank was in a 500' deep hole in the ground, you
might have a point. But then you wouldn't need a pump design point of 500'
head.
Me: If we had a half-capable technician or mechanic, we wouldn't need
an engineer. And I did give different consideration for pump
location, and pump heads.
Duke: > Systems are designed and purchased long before a tech gets hold of it.
Regardless of how the typical tank is filled, the most
energy efficient way is to fill the tank from near the bottom.
Duke: > Shucks, now you really let me down. A 500' filling pipe would
do the job, if filled first.
Me: I'll try and make this more clear, Duke. You finally mention a
500' filling pipe, which would add a friction head. This is what I spoke of earlier.
In using this pipe to fill the tank, the pump must __always__ work
against a 500' head,
Duke: > Bad comment. A typical pump installation would operate over
a range of flows.
Wrong. A pipe discharging into the top of a 500' high tank, fed from a
pipe starting at essentially the zero level and discharging at the 500' level, would
always have at least a 500' head, even if the flow were miniscule. As
the flow rate increases so that friction head increases to a noticeable
value the head would increase above 500'.
Sure, and the flowrate would drop off a tad because, as you said, line drop
would use up some of the tdh..
even when the filling starts, with the level of liquid in the tank
being essentially zero, at first.
(Unless you crawfish and say the tank already has 499'or some lesser
figure, above zero feet, in the tank).
Duke: > No, no, no.
Yes Yes Yes.
No, no, no.
With a pump discharging into a point near the tank bottom, the flow
rate will be much greater than 1000 gpm. Surely you are familiar with
performance curve for pumps?
Oh, yes.
I tried to illustrate this to you, but your apparent obfuscation in
refusing to specify operating conditions again arises.
But you never got the "need to fill" the pipe first and it MUST BE VERTICAL.
You are shot down in flames. Or maybe centrifugally pumped into the
sewer system. I hope you have kept yourself company by the
regurgitation of your dodging techniques.
I'm not dodging. I'm spoon feeding you to the answer.
Your writings here are dishonest or irrational. I suppose they need not
be entirely mutually exclusive.
Put up or shut up, Duke. Don't waste our time by your cries for
attention. You and I might have held an interesting discussion off AA.
but you're apparently not up to it. Don't bother to reply unless you
have something worthwhile to say. You haven't yet said anything
worthwhile in this thread.
Now you're trying to bail out and blame me because you still can't figure out
the answer.
To whit, the intermediate answer I acknowledged really is 5.6 years but ONLY
with a vertical discharge pipe of approximately 500ft length and pre filled to
the top. It could be within the tank via a flanged nozzle, or up the outside up
and over.
But that's not the answer I was seeking. I did NOT say anything about a
discharge pipe and asked for an answer. This was not part of the given
information -- as you know as you tried to make it a part..
So you're still coming up short of the true answer to the problem as given. And
no fancy stuff. Just pump stuff. You're almost there, but not yet.
Does this look familiar: HP = (TDH x Q) / 3960 (for gpm)
Oh. That suggests a much easier solution than the one I'd thought of
earlier. But you'd have to know some physics to understand it. Are you able
to derive that formula, Duke?
No need to.
Naturally, because the rule-of-thumb approximation breaks
down at some point. When input and output pressure are
both zero (both reservoirs at the same level), TDH=0, the
equation says any amount of water can be moved without
expending any energy; or, that if a finite nonzero
horsepower is applied, then you get an infinite flow
rate. Either of those situations is obviously hokum.
So you can't apply the equation from the beginning of the
tank filling operation.
How sweet to hear you confirm that.
The total volume of water in the tank at a point in time
is the integral of flow, Q·dt. But the flow rate depends
on TDH which depends on the volume of water already in
the tank. So now we're all into different equations,
which are clearly way over duke's addled head. Maybe Bud
could explain that to him? :)
LOL. I'm crossposting this to the group Bud monitors in case he wants to
get involved.

Bud, in case you are interested, the subject of the thread is Re: Duke lie
0902171 - Blatantly False Witness
Bud Frawley
2017-10-10 13:34:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <1411902173529280765.318345street04108-
Post by Ted
But I specified a centrifugal pump. Traditional.
But you refused to specify conditions.
Had all you need if teddie and atl knew pumps.
1) Duke has included the elevation or static head, but not the
friction head, which adds to the static head, and is the resistance
of the water or fluid
being pumped through the pipe filling the tank. The value of the friction head
depends on the flow rate, the discharge pipe size, and somewhat on the surface
smoothness of the pipe interior. The additional friction head could easily
increase the overall head from five to ten percent higher. In poorly engineered
cases or adverse operating conditions this could be much more. In all cases the
flow rate or volume pumped per unit time would be decreased.
Friction head?? In a tank 1000 feet in diameter???? I simplified the problem
to the lowest level of complexity possible.
Me: > >No, you did not specify how the tank was to be filled.
Duke: > Right, part of the reasonable.problem
A problem without sufficient data is next to meaningless.
Not what I'm trying to reveal.
Later in this post of yours, you speak of a 500' long pipe emptying
into the tank, so friction is involved.
No, I "laughed" at the idea of being concerned with line friction at 1000 ft
diameter.
No, you speak of a 500' length of pipe emptying into a tank. I suppose
you could say the pipe had a horizontal run, but you also said that
there were no tricks.
You brought up the pipe, not me. And I offered that this was really a good
idea. But, the pipe must run vertical, not horizontal.
You spoke of a pump rated at X gpm at P pressure. There is an
implication there that the pump is working against a 500' head.
Duke: > The tank is empty - no points.
Okay, but another part yet of unspecified conditions.
If you know pumps, you don't need more.
If the pump is working constantly against a 500' head, then this
necessitates a pipe discharging at the 500' level.
That's what I said ................if............what?
If you say that there is no friction head, possible in a 500' tall
tank being filled from within the tank, near the bottom,
Long before a pipe came into the picture.
So you want a teleporter instead of a pipe?
The pipe is a "reasonable" solution, but only if it is first filled with water
to provide the static head (vertical pipe mandatory).
then the pump operates starting against a minimal head, off the tank
bottom, and the flow rate would be much greater than the 1000 gpm you cite.
Duke: > Now you're getting hot.
I've brought this up multiple times. You refused to comment on it.
No, you didn't. Not to me anyway. You're still coming up short at
understanding.
<ok, got to run right now> Will continue later this morning.
2) Duke did not specify what the pressure is on the inlet to the
pump. If the pump is fed from a tank, particularly a tall one with a
base at the same level,
, the volume will increase, as the inlet-outlet pressure
differential decreases. The pump may be fed from another 500? tall
tank. Even if fed from a
separate tank, with fluid fifty feet above the pump inlet, the flow rate would
be significantly higher. And Duke has not specified the necessity of a NPSH, Net
Positive Suction Head, to avoid pump cavitation, and pump damage.
Duke: > >> I specifically stated that inlet conditions are not a
part of the problem.
You refused to clarify specific conditions.
Me: You did? Initially? Was this before or after you said that the
answer was figured mathematically? Or when you said the answer was not
computed mathematically? Show this, please.
Duke: > Yes, to simplify the discussio0n
Another refusal to clarify your problem.
And for a reasonably educated technician or mechanic, inlet conditions
are ___always___ part of the calculation.
Duke: >It would make it too complicated.
Me: For us, generally? No.
This problem was presented to our two clowns ted and atl. Your jumping in was
welcome.
3) For me, his most grievous mistake is the omission of how the
liquid is delivered into the tank being filled. Your calculations
work for delivering the water
to the top of the tank, but you did not specify where and how the
discharge would be. You do not include another possibility. Actually
a reasonably high probability.
Now, in the big picture, that would be a reasonable consideration. However, I
did specify attaching a centrifugal pump rated at 1000 gpm/500 ft
head to a vertical round tank 1000 ft in diameter and 500 ft tall, how long
will it take to fill the tank?
Insufficient evidence, by your own admission. Another refusal to clarify
specific conditions.
You still don't get it.
In starting to fill the tank of this height, why fill from the top?
At the start, this is ?lifting? water 500? in height, and then
letting it drop to the bottom of the tank.
Duke: > Kinda goofy way to do things, although I don't know anyone
would put a pump up
in the air. Of course, if the tank was in a 500' deep hole in the ground, you
might have a point. But then you wouldn't need a pump design point of 500'
head.
Me: If we had a half-capable technician or mechanic, we wouldn't need
an engineer. And I did give different consideration for pump
location, and pump heads.
Duke: > Systems are designed and purchased long before a tech gets hold of it.
Regardless of how the typical tank is filled, the most
energy efficient way is to fill the tank from near the bottom.
Duke: > Shucks, now you really let me down. A 500' filling pipe would
do the job, if filled first.
Me: I'll try and make this more clear, Duke. You finally mention a
500' filling pipe, which would add a friction head. This is what I spoke of earlier.
In using this pipe to fill the tank, the pump must __always__ work
against a 500' head,
Duke: > Bad comment. A typical pump installation would operate over
a range of flows.
Wrong. A pipe discharging into the top of a 500' high tank, fed from a
pipe starting at essentially the zero level and discharging at the 500' level, would
always have at least a 500' head, even if the flow were miniscule. As
the flow rate increases so that friction head increases to a noticeable
value the head would increase above 500'.
Sure, and the flowrate would drop off a tad because, as you said, line drop
would use up some of the tdh..
even when the filling starts, with the level of liquid in the tank
being essentially zero, at first.
(Unless you crawfish and say the tank already has 499'or some lesser
figure, above zero feet, in the tank).
Duke: > No, no, no.
Yes Yes Yes.
No, no, no.
With a pump discharging into a point near the tank bottom, the flow
rate will be much greater than 1000 gpm. Surely you are familiar with
performance curve for pumps?
Oh, yes.
I tried to illustrate this to you, but your apparent obfuscation in
refusing to specify operating conditions again arises.
But you never got the "need to fill" the pipe first and it MUST BE VERTICAL.
You are shot down in flames. Or maybe centrifugally pumped into the
sewer system. I hope you have kept yourself company by the
regurgitation of your dodging techniques.
I'm not dodging. I'm spoon feeding you to the answer.
Your writings here are dishonest or irrational. I suppose they need not
be entirely mutually exclusive.
Put up or shut up, Duke. Don't waste our time by your cries for
attention. You and I might have held an interesting discussion off AA.
but you're apparently not up to it. Don't bother to reply unless you
have something worthwhile to say. You haven't yet said anything
worthwhile in this thread.
Now you're trying to bail out and blame me because you still can't figure out
the answer.
To whit, the intermediate answer I acknowledged really is 5.6 years but ONLY
with a vertical discharge pipe of approximately 500ft length and pre filled to
the top. It could be within the tank via a flanged nozzle, or up the outside up
and over.
But that's not the answer I was seeking. I did NOT say anything about a
discharge pipe and asked for an answer. This was not part of the given
information -- as you know as you tried to make it a part..
So you're still coming up short of the true answer to the problem as given. And
no fancy stuff. Just pump stuff. You're almost there, but not yet.
Does this look familiar: HP = (TDH x Q) / 3960 (for gpm)
Oh. That suggests a much easier solution than the one I'd thought of
earlier. But you'd have to know some physics to understand it. Are you able
to derive that formula, Duke?
No need to.
Naturally, because the rule-of-thumb approximation breaks
down at some point. When input and output pressure are
both zero (both reservoirs at the same level), TDH=0, the
equation says any amount of water can be moved without
expending any energy; or, that if a finite nonzero
horsepower is applied, then you get an infinite flow
rate. Either of those situations is obviously hokum.
So you can't apply the equation from the beginning of the
tank filling operation.
How sweet to hear you confirm that.
The total volume of water in the tank at a point in time
is the integral of flow, Q·dt. But the flow rate depends
on TDH which depends on the volume of water already in
the tank. So now we're all into different equations,
which are clearly way over duke's addled head. Maybe Bud
could explain that to him? :)
LOL. I'm crossposting this to the group Bud monitors in case he wants to
get involved.
Bud, in case you are interested, the subject of the thread is Re: Duke lie
0902171 - Blatantly False Witness
I'n not gonna waste my time to teaching 1st grade science to moron's
which do'nt listen anyway's! this is so far over there head;s they need
binoculer's to see it!
duke
2017-10-11 17:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud Frawley
Post by Ted
Bud, in case you are interested, the subject of the thread is Re: Duke lie
0902171 - Blatantly False Witness
I'n not gonna waste my time to teaching 1st grade science to moron's
which do'nt listen anyway's! this is so far over there head;s they need
binoculer's to see it!
Way to haul ass. You know better than to get involved.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-10-11 19:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Bud Frawley
Post by Ted
Bud, in case you are interested, the subject of the thread is Re: Duke lie
0902171 - Blatantly False Witness
I'n not gonna waste my time to teaching 1st grade science to moron's
which do'nt listen anyway's! this is so far over there head;s they need
binoculer's to see it!
Way to haul ass. You know better than to get involved.
the dukester, American-American
Ha! That's a joke. Bud handed you your fat ass and you know it, liar. He
just doesn't want to waste his time with idiots, and I can well
understand that.
duke
2017-10-12 17:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Bud Frawley
Post by Ted
Bud, in case you are interested, the subject of the thread is Re: Duke lie
0902171 - Blatantly False Witness
I'n not gonna waste my time to teaching 1st grade science to moron's
which do'nt listen anyway's! this is so far over there head;s they need
binoculer's to see it!
Way to haul ass. You know better than to get involved.
Ha! That's a joke. Bud handed you your fat ass and you know it, liar. He
just doesn't want to waste his time with idiots, and I can well
understand that.
You're.........that idiot.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Bud Frawley
2017-10-12 18:58:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
Post by Bud Frawley
Post by Ted
Bud, in case you are interested, the subject of the thread is Re: Duke lie
0902171 - Blatantly False Witness
I'n not gonna waste my time to teaching 1st grade science to moron's
which do'nt listen anyway's! this is so far over there head;s they need
binoculer's to see it!
Way to haul ass. You know better than to get involved.
OMG you are so busted! I handed you your fat ass and you know it! I
do'nt waste my time teaching 1st grade science! you would of a learned
that already if you was'nt so busy playing with your own self in back of
class! I hope a girl did'nt see except you were probly hoping a boy
would see! LLLLOOOOLLLL!!!!
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-10-12 19:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:58:13 -0500, Bud Frawley
Post by Bud Frawley
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
Post by Bud Frawley
Post by Ted
Bud, in case you are interested, the subject of the thread is Re: Duke lie
0902171 - Blatantly False Witness
I'n not gonna waste my time to teaching 1st grade science to moron's
which do'nt listen anyway's! this is so far over there head;s they need
binoculer's to see it!
Way to haul ass. You know better than to get involved.
OMG you are so busted! I handed you your fat ass and you know it! I
do'nt waste my time teaching 1st grade science! you would of a learned
Exactly. I explained to him why you chose not to waste your time with
the moron.
Post by Bud Frawley
that already if you was'nt so busy playing with your own self in back of
class! I hope a girl did'nt see except you were probly hoping a boy
would see! LLLLOOOOLLLL!!!!
LOL. We've suspected Duke is homosexual for a long time.
duke
2017-10-13 17:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud Frawley
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
Post by Bud Frawley
Post by Ted
Bud, in case you are interested, the subject of the thread is Re: Duke lie
0902171 - Blatantly False Witness
I'n not gonna waste my time to teaching 1st grade science to moron's
which do'nt listen anyway's! this is so far over there head;s they need
binoculer's to see it!
Way to haul ass. You know better than to get involved.
OMG you are so busted! I handed you your fat ass and you know it! I
do'nt waste my time teaching 1st grade science! you would of a learned
that already if you was'nt so busy playing with your own self in back of
class! I hope a girl did'nt see except you were probly hoping a boy
would see! LLLLOOOOLLLL!!!!
Gee, you learned how to speak all of a sudden.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-10-11 19:11:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud Frawley
In article <1411902173529280765.318345street04108-
Post by Ted
But I specified a centrifugal pump. Traditional.
But you refused to specify conditions.
Had all you need if teddie and atl knew pumps.
1) Duke has included the elevation or static head, but not the
friction head, which adds to the static head, and is the resistance
of the water or fluid
being pumped through the pipe filling the tank. The value of the friction head
depends on the flow rate, the discharge pipe size, and somewhat on the surface
smoothness of the pipe interior. The additional friction head could easily
increase the overall head from five to ten percent higher. In poorly engineered
cases or adverse operating conditions this could be much more. In all cases the
flow rate or volume pumped per unit time would be decreased.
Friction head?? In a tank 1000 feet in diameter???? I simplified the problem
to the lowest level of complexity possible.
Me: > >No, you did not specify how the tank was to be filled.
Duke: > Right, part of the reasonable.problem
A problem without sufficient data is next to meaningless.
Not what I'm trying to reveal.
Later in this post of yours, you speak of a 500' long pipe emptying
into the tank, so friction is involved.
No, I "laughed" at the idea of being concerned with line friction at 1000 ft
diameter.
No, you speak of a 500' length of pipe emptying into a tank. I suppose
you could say the pipe had a horizontal run, but you also said that
there were no tricks.
You brought up the pipe, not me. And I offered that this was really a good
idea. But, the pipe must run vertical, not horizontal.
You spoke of a pump rated at X gpm at P pressure. There is an
implication there that the pump is working against a 500' head.
Duke: > The tank is empty - no points.
Okay, but another part yet of unspecified conditions.
If you know pumps, you don't need more.
If the pump is working constantly against a 500' head, then this
necessitates a pipe discharging at the 500' level.
That's what I said ................if............what?
If you say that there is no friction head, possible in a 500' tall
tank being filled from within the tank, near the bottom,
Long before a pipe came into the picture.
So you want a teleporter instead of a pipe?
The pipe is a "reasonable" solution, but only if it is first filled with water
to provide the static head (vertical pipe mandatory).
then the pump operates starting against a minimal head, off the tank
bottom, and the flow rate would be much greater than the 1000 gpm you cite.
Duke: > Now you're getting hot.
I've brought this up multiple times. You refused to comment on it.
No, you didn't. Not to me anyway. You're still coming up short at
understanding.
<ok, got to run right now> Will continue later this morning.
2) Duke did not specify what the pressure is on the inlet to the
pump. If the pump is fed from a tank, particularly a tall one with a
base at the same level,
, the volume will increase, as the inlet-outlet pressure
differential decreases. The pump may be fed from another 500? tall
tank. Even if fed from a
separate tank, with fluid fifty feet above the pump inlet, the flow rate would
be significantly higher. And Duke has not specified the necessity of a NPSH, Net
Positive Suction Head, to avoid pump cavitation, and pump damage.
Duke: > >> I specifically stated that inlet conditions are not a
part of the problem.
You refused to clarify specific conditions.
Me: You did? Initially? Was this before or after you said that the
answer was figured mathematically? Or when you said the answer was not
computed mathematically? Show this, please.
Duke: > Yes, to simplify the discussio0n
Another refusal to clarify your problem.
And for a reasonably educated technician or mechanic, inlet conditions
are ___always___ part of the calculation.
Duke: >It would make it too complicated.
Me: For us, generally? No.
This problem was presented to our two clowns ted and atl. Your jumping in was
welcome.
3) For me, his most grievous mistake is the omission of how the
liquid is delivered into the tank being filled. Your calculations
work for delivering the water
to the top of the tank, but you did not specify where and how the
discharge would be. You do not include another possibility. Actually
a reasonably high probability.
Now, in the big picture, that would be a reasonable consideration. However, I
did specify attaching a centrifugal pump rated at 1000 gpm/500 ft
head to a vertical round tank 1000 ft in diameter and 500 ft tall, how long
will it take to fill the tank?
Insufficient evidence, by your own admission. Another refusal to clarify
specific conditions.
You still don't get it.
In starting to fill the tank of this height, why fill from the top?
At the start, this is ?lifting? water 500? in height, and then
letting it drop to the bottom of the tank.
Duke: > Kinda goofy way to do things, although I don't know anyone
would put a pump up
in the air. Of course, if the tank was in a 500' deep hole in the ground, you
might have a point. But then you wouldn't need a pump design point of 500'
head.
Me: If we had a half-capable technician or mechanic, we wouldn't need
an engineer. And I did give different consideration for pump
location, and pump heads.
Duke: > Systems are designed and purchased long before a tech gets hold of it.
Regardless of how the typical tank is filled, the most
energy efficient way is to fill the tank from near the bottom.
Duke: > Shucks, now you really let me down. A 500' filling pipe would
do the job, if filled first.
Me: I'll try and make this more clear, Duke. You finally mention a
500' filling pipe, which would add a friction head. This is what I spoke of earlier.
In using this pipe to fill the tank, the pump must __always__ work
against a 500' head,
Duke: > Bad comment. A typical pump installation would operate over
a range of flows.
Wrong. A pipe discharging into the top of a 500' high tank, fed from a
pipe starting at essentially the zero level and discharging at the 500' level, would
always have at least a 500' head, even if the flow were miniscule. As
the flow rate increases so that friction head increases to a noticeable
value the head would increase above 500'.
Sure, and the flowrate would drop off a tad because, as you said, line drop
would use up some of the tdh..
even when the filling starts, with the level of liquid in the tank
being essentially zero, at first.
(Unless you crawfish and say the tank already has 499'or some lesser
figure, above zero feet, in the tank).
Duke: > No, no, no.
Yes Yes Yes.
No, no, no.
With a pump discharging into a point near the tank bottom, the flow
rate will be much greater than 1000 gpm. Surely you are familiar with
performance curve for pumps?
Oh, yes.
I tried to illustrate this to you, but your apparent obfuscation in
refusing to specify operating conditions again arises.
But you never got the "need to fill" the pipe first and it MUST BE VERTICAL.
You are shot down in flames. Or maybe centrifugally pumped into the
sewer system. I hope you have kept yourself company by the
regurgitation of your dodging techniques.
I'm not dodging. I'm spoon feeding you to the answer.
Your writings here are dishonest or irrational. I suppose they need not
be entirely mutually exclusive.
Put up or shut up, Duke. Don't waste our time by your cries for
attention. You and I might have held an interesting discussion off AA.
but you're apparently not up to it. Don't bother to reply unless you
have something worthwhile to say. You haven't yet said anything
worthwhile in this thread.
Now you're trying to bail out and blame me because you still can't figure out
the answer.
To whit, the intermediate answer I acknowledged really is 5.6 years but ONLY
with a vertical discharge pipe of approximately 500ft length and pre filled to
the top. It could be within the tank via a flanged nozzle, or up the outside up
and over.
But that's not the answer I was seeking. I did NOT say anything about a
discharge pipe and asked for an answer. This was not part of the given
information -- as you know as you tried to make it a part..
So you're still coming up short of the true answer to the problem as given. And
no fancy stuff. Just pump stuff. You're almost there, but not yet.
Does this look familiar: HP = (TDH x Q) / 3960 (for gpm)
Oh. That suggests a much easier solution than the one I'd thought of
earlier. But you'd have to know some physics to understand it. Are you able
to derive that formula, Duke?
No need to.
Naturally, because the rule-of-thumb approximation breaks
down at some point. When input and output pressure are
both zero (both reservoirs at the same level), TDH=0, the
equation says any amount of water can be moved without
expending any energy; or, that if a finite nonzero
horsepower is applied, then you get an infinite flow
rate. Either of those situations is obviously hokum.
So you can't apply the equation from the beginning of the
tank filling operation.
How sweet to hear you confirm that.
The total volume of water in the tank at a point in time
is the integral of flow, Q·dt. But the flow rate depends
on TDH which depends on the volume of water already in
the tank. So now we're all into different equations,
which are clearly way over duke's addled head. Maybe Bud
could explain that to him? :)
LOL. I'm crossposting this to the group Bud monitors in case he wants to
get involved.
Bud, in case you are interested, the subject of the thread is Re: Duke lie
0902171 - Blatantly False Witness
I'n not gonna waste my time to teaching 1st grade science to moron's
which do'nt listen anyway's! this is so far over there head;s they need
binoculer's to see it!
LOL. Thanks for responding, Bud. Yes, I can well understand why you've
had enough of the idiot Duke. You tried to teach him something, but he
was too dumb to understand, and too ungrateful to appreciate it. :)
duke
2017-10-11 17:40:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
But I specified a centrifugal pump. Traditional.
But you refused to specify conditions.
Had all you need if teddie and atl knew pumps.
1) Duke has included the elevation or static head, but not the
friction head, which adds to the static head, and is the resistance
of the water or fluid
being pumped through the pipe filling the tank. The value of the friction head
depends on the flow rate, the discharge pipe size, and somewhat on the surface
smoothness of the pipe interior. The additional friction head could easily
increase the overall head from five to ten percent higher. In poorly engineered
cases or adverse operating conditions this could be much more. In all cases the
flow rate or volume pumped per unit time would be decreased.
Friction head?? In a tank 1000 feet in diameter???? I simplified the problem
to the lowest level of complexity possible.
Me: > >No, you did not specify how the tank was to be filled.
Duke: > Right, part of the reasonable.problem
A problem without sufficient data is next to meaningless.
Not what I'm trying to reveal.
Later in this post of yours, you speak of a 500' long pipe emptying
into the tank, so friction is involved.
No, I "laughed" at the idea of being concerned with line friction at 1000 ft
diameter.
No, you speak of a 500' length of pipe emptying into a tank. I suppose
you could say the pipe had a horizontal run, but you also said that
there were no tricks.
You brought up the pipe, not me. And I offered that this was really a good
idea. But, the pipe must run vertical, not horizontal.
You spoke of a pump rated at X gpm at P pressure. There is an
implication there that the pump is working against a 500' head.
Duke: > The tank is empty - no points.
Okay, but another part yet of unspecified conditions.
If you know pumps, you don't need more.
If the pump is working constantly against a 500' head, then this
necessitates a pipe discharging at the 500' level.
That's what I said ................if............what?
If you say that there is no friction head, possible in a 500' tall
tank being filled from within the tank, near the bottom,
Long before a pipe came into the picture.
So you want a teleporter instead of a pipe?
The pipe is a "reasonable" solution, but only if it is first filled with water
to provide the static head (vertical pipe mandatory).
then the pump operates starting against a minimal head, off the tank
bottom, and the flow rate would be much greater than the 1000 gpm you cite.
Duke: > Now you're getting hot.
I've brought this up multiple times. You refused to comment on it.
No, you didn't. Not to me anyway. You're still coming up short at
understanding.
<ok, got to run right now> Will continue later this morning.
2) Duke did not specify what the pressure is on the inlet to the
pump. If the pump is fed from a tank, particularly a tall one with a
base at the same level,
, the volume will increase, as the inlet-outlet pressure
differential decreases. The pump may be fed from another 500? tall
tank. Even if fed from a
separate tank, with fluid fifty feet above the pump inlet, the flow rate would
be significantly higher. And Duke has not specified the necessity of a NPSH, Net
Positive Suction Head, to avoid pump cavitation, and pump damage.
Duke: > >> I specifically stated that inlet conditions are not a
part of the problem.
You refused to clarify specific conditions.
Me: You did? Initially? Was this before or after you said that the
answer was figured mathematically? Or when you said the answer was not
computed mathematically? Show this, please.
Duke: > Yes, to simplify the discussio0n
Another refusal to clarify your problem.
And for a reasonably educated technician or mechanic, inlet conditions
are ___always___ part of the calculation.
Duke: >It would make it too complicated.
Me: For us, generally? No.
This problem was presented to our two clowns ted and atl. Your jumping in was
welcome.
3) For me, his most grievous mistake is the omission of how the
liquid is delivered into the tank being filled. Your calculations
work for delivering the water
to the top of the tank, but you did not specify where and how the
discharge would be. You do not include another possibility. Actually
a reasonably high probability.
Now, in the big picture, that would be a reasonable consideration. However, I
did specify attaching a centrifugal pump rated at 1000 gpm/500 ft
head to a vertical round tank 1000 ft in diameter and 500 ft tall, how long
will it take to fill the tank?
Insufficient evidence, by your own admission. Another refusal to clarify
specific conditions.
You still don't get it.
In starting to fill the tank of this height, why fill from the top?
At the start, this is ?lifting? water 500? in height, and then
letting it drop to the bottom of the tank.
Duke: > Kinda goofy way to do things, although I don't know anyone
would put a pump up
in the air. Of course, if the tank was in a 500' deep hole in the ground, you
might have a point. But then you wouldn't need a pump design point of 500'
head.
Me: If we had a half-capable technician or mechanic, we wouldn't need
an engineer. And I did give different consideration for pump
location, and pump heads.
Duke: > Systems are designed and purchased long before a tech gets hold of it.
Regardless of how the typical tank is filled, the most
energy efficient way is to fill the tank from near the bottom.
Duke: > Shucks, now you really let me down. A 500' filling pipe would
do the job, if filled first.
Me: I'll try and make this more clear, Duke. You finally mention a
500' filling pipe, which would add a friction head. This is what I spoke of earlier.
In using this pipe to fill the tank, the pump must __always__ work
against a 500' head,
Duke: > Bad comment. A typical pump installation would operate over
a range of flows.
Wrong. A pipe discharging into the top of a 500' high tank, fed from a
pipe starting at essentially the zero level and discharging at the 500' level, would
always have at least a 500' head, even if the flow were miniscule. As
the flow rate increases so that friction head increases to a noticeable
value the head would increase above 500'.
Sure, and the flowrate would drop off a tad because, as you said, line drop
would use up some of the tdh..
even when the filling starts, with the level of liquid in the tank
being essentially zero, at first.
(Unless you crawfish and say the tank already has 499'or some lesser
figure, above zero feet, in the tank).
Duke: > No, no, no.
Yes Yes Yes.
No, no, no.
With a pump discharging into a point near the tank bottom, the flow
rate will be much greater than 1000 gpm. Surely you are familiar with
performance curve for pumps?
Oh, yes.
I tried to illustrate this to you, but your apparent obfuscation in
refusing to specify operating conditions again arises.
But you never got the "need to fill" the pipe first and it MUST BE VERTICAL.
You are shot down in flames. Or maybe centrifugally pumped into the
sewer system. I hope you have kept yourself company by the
regurgitation of your dodging techniques.
I'm not dodging. I'm spoon feeding you to the answer.
Your writings here are dishonest or irrational. I suppose they need not
be entirely mutually exclusive.
Put up or shut up, Duke. Don't waste our time by your cries for
attention. You and I might have held an interesting discussion off AA.
but you're apparently not up to it. Don't bother to reply unless you
have something worthwhile to say. You haven't yet said anything
worthwhile in this thread.
Now you're trying to bail out and blame me because you still can't figure out
the answer.
To whit, the intermediate answer I acknowledged really is 5.6 years but ONLY
with a vertical discharge pipe of approximately 500ft length and pre filled to
the top. It could be within the tank via a flanged nozzle, or up the outside up
and over.
But that's not the answer I was seeking. I did NOT say anything about a
discharge pipe and asked for an answer. This was not part of the given
information -- as you know as you tried to make it a part..
So you're still coming up short of the true answer to the problem as given. And
no fancy stuff. Just pump stuff. You're almost there, but not yet.
Does this look familiar: HP = (TDH x Q) / 3960 (for gpm)
Oh. That suggests a much easier solution than the one I'd thought of
earlier. But you'd have to know some physics to understand it. Are you able
to derive that formula, Duke?
No need to.
Naturally, because the rule-of-thumb approximation breaks
down at some point. When input and output pressure are
both zero (both reservoirs at the same level), TDH=0, the
equation says any amount of water can be moved without
expending any energy; or, that if a finite nonzero
horsepower is applied, then you get an infinite flow
rate. Either of those situations is obviously hokum.
So you can't apply the equation from the beginning of the
tank filling operation.
How sweet to hear you confirm that.
Fawley is a hokum. There is no reservoir on the suction of the pump.
Post by Ted
The total volume of water in the tank at a point in time
is the integral of flow, Q·dt. But the flow rate depends
on TDH which depends on the volume of water already in
the tank. So now we're all into different equations,
which are clearly way over duke's addled head. Maybe Bud
could explain that to him? :)
LOL. I'm crossposting this to the group Bud monitors in case he wants to
get involved.
Bud, in case you are interested, the subject of the thread is Re: Duke lie
0902171 - Blatantly False Witness
You flunked, teddie the fairy.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-10-11 19:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
But I specified a centrifugal pump. Traditional.
But you refused to specify conditions.
Had all you need if teddie and atl knew pumps.
1) Duke has included the elevation or static head, but not the
friction head, which adds to the static head, and is the resistance
of the water or fluid
being pumped through the pipe filling the tank. The value of the friction head
depends on the flow rate, the discharge pipe size, and somewhat on the surface
smoothness of the pipe interior. The additional friction head could easily
increase the overall head from five to ten percent higher. In poorly engineered
cases or adverse operating conditions this could be much more. In all cases the
flow rate or volume pumped per unit time would be decreased.
Friction head?? In a tank 1000 feet in diameter???? I simplified the problem
to the lowest level of complexity possible.
Me: > >No, you did not specify how the tank was to be filled.
Duke: > Right, part of the reasonable.problem
A problem without sufficient data is next to meaningless.
Not what I'm trying to reveal.
Later in this post of yours, you speak of a 500' long pipe emptying
into the tank, so friction is involved.
No, I "laughed" at the idea of being concerned with line friction at 1000 ft
diameter.
No, you speak of a 500' length of pipe emptying into a tank. I suppose
you could say the pipe had a horizontal run, but you also said that
there were no tricks.
You brought up the pipe, not me. And I offered that this was really a good
idea. But, the pipe must run vertical, not horizontal.
You spoke of a pump rated at X gpm at P pressure. There is an
implication there that the pump is working against a 500' head.
Duke: > The tank is empty - no points.
Okay, but another part yet of unspecified conditions.
If you know pumps, you don't need more.
If the pump is working constantly against a 500' head, then this
necessitates a pipe discharging at the 500' level.
That's what I said ................if............what?
If you say that there is no friction head, possible in a 500' tall
tank being filled from within the tank, near the bottom,
Long before a pipe came into the picture.
So you want a teleporter instead of a pipe?
The pipe is a "reasonable" solution, but only if it is first filled with water
to provide the static head (vertical pipe mandatory).
then the pump operates starting against a minimal head, off the tank
bottom, and the flow rate would be much greater than the 1000 gpm you cite.
Duke: > Now you're getting hot.
I've brought this up multiple times. You refused to comment on it.
No, you didn't. Not to me anyway. You're still coming up short at
understanding.
<ok, got to run right now> Will continue later this morning.
2) Duke did not specify what the pressure is on the inlet to the
pump. If the pump is fed from a tank, particularly a tall one with a
base at the same level,
, the volume will increase, as the inlet-outlet pressure
differential decreases. The pump may be fed from another 500? tall
tank. Even if fed from a
separate tank, with fluid fifty feet above the pump inlet, the flow rate would
be significantly higher. And Duke has not specified the necessity of a NPSH, Net
Positive Suction Head, to avoid pump cavitation, and pump damage.
Duke: > >> I specifically stated that inlet conditions are not a
part of the problem.
You refused to clarify specific conditions.
Me: You did? Initially? Was this before or after you said that the
answer was figured mathematically? Or when you said the answer was not
computed mathematically? Show this, please.
Duke: > Yes, to simplify the discussio0n
Another refusal to clarify your problem.
And for a reasonably educated technician or mechanic, inlet conditions
are ___always___ part of the calculation.
Duke: >It would make it too complicated.
Me: For us, generally? No.
This problem was presented to our two clowns ted and atl. Your jumping in was
welcome.
3) For me, his most grievous mistake is the omission of how the
liquid is delivered into the tank being filled. Your calculations
work for delivering the water
to the top of the tank, but you did not specify where and how the
discharge would be. You do not include another possibility. Actually
a reasonably high probability.
Now, in the big picture, that would be a reasonable consideration. However, I
did specify attaching a centrifugal pump rated at 1000 gpm/500 ft
head to a vertical round tank 1000 ft in diameter and 500 ft tall, how long
will it take to fill the tank?
Insufficient evidence, by your own admission. Another refusal to clarify
specific conditions.
You still don't get it.
In starting to fill the tank of this height, why fill from the top?
At the start, this is ?lifting? water 500? in height, and then
letting it drop to the bottom of the tank.
Duke: > Kinda goofy way to do things, although I don't know anyone
would put a pump up
in the air. Of course, if the tank was in a 500' deep hole in the ground, you
might have a point. But then you wouldn't need a pump design point of 500'
head.
Me: If we had a half-capable technician or mechanic, we wouldn't need
an engineer. And I did give different consideration for pump
location, and pump heads.
Duke: > Systems are designed and purchased long before a tech gets hold of it.
Regardless of how the typical tank is filled, the most
energy efficient way is to fill the tank from near the bottom.
Duke: > Shucks, now you really let me down. A 500' filling pipe would
do the job, if filled first.
Me: I'll try and make this more clear, Duke. You finally mention a
500' filling pipe, which would add a friction head. This is what I spoke of earlier.
In using this pipe to fill the tank, the pump must __always__ work
against a 500' head,
Duke: > Bad comment. A typical pump installation would operate over
a range of flows.
Wrong. A pipe discharging into the top of a 500' high tank, fed from a
pipe starting at essentially the zero level and discharging at the 500' level, would
always have at least a 500' head, even if the flow were miniscule. As
the flow rate increases so that friction head increases to a noticeable
value the head would increase above 500'.
Sure, and the flowrate would drop off a tad because, as you said, line drop
would use up some of the tdh..
even when the filling starts, with the level of liquid in the tank
being essentially zero, at first.
(Unless you crawfish and say the tank already has 499'or some lesser
figure, above zero feet, in the tank).
Duke: > No, no, no.
Yes Yes Yes.
No, no, no.
With a pump discharging into a point near the tank bottom, the flow
rate will be much greater than 1000 gpm. Surely you are familiar with
performance curve for pumps?
Oh, yes.
I tried to illustrate this to you, but your apparent obfuscation in
refusing to specify operating conditions again arises.
But you never got the "need to fill" the pipe first and it MUST BE VERTICAL.
You are shot down in flames. Or maybe centrifugally pumped into the
sewer system. I hope you have kept yourself company by the
regurgitation of your dodging techniques.
I'm not dodging. I'm spoon feeding you to the answer.
Your writings here are dishonest or irrational. I suppose they need not
be entirely mutually exclusive.
Put up or shut up, Duke. Don't waste our time by your cries for
attention. You and I might have held an interesting discussion off AA.
but you're apparently not up to it. Don't bother to reply unless you
have something worthwhile to say. You haven't yet said anything
worthwhile in this thread.
Now you're trying to bail out and blame me because you still can't figure out
the answer.
To whit, the intermediate answer I acknowledged really is 5.6 years but ONLY
with a vertical discharge pipe of approximately 500ft length and pre filled to
the top. It could be within the tank via a flanged nozzle, or up the outside up
and over.
But that's not the answer I was seeking. I did NOT say anything about a
discharge pipe and asked for an answer. This was not part of the given
information -- as you know as you tried to make it a part..
So you're still coming up short of the true answer to the problem as given. And
no fancy stuff. Just pump stuff. You're almost there, but not yet.
Does this look familiar: HP = (TDH x Q) / 3960 (for gpm)
Oh. That suggests a much easier solution than the one I'd thought of
earlier. But you'd have to know some physics to understand it. Are you able
to derive that formula, Duke?
No need to.
Naturally, because the rule-of-thumb approximation breaks
down at some point. When input and output pressure are
both zero (both reservoirs at the same level), TDH=0, the
equation says any amount of water can be moved without
expending any energy; or, that if a finite nonzero
horsepower is applied, then you get an infinite flow
rate. Either of those situations is obviously hokum.
So you can't apply the equation from the beginning of the
tank filling operation.
How sweet to hear you confirm that.
Fawley is a hokum. There is no reservoir on the suction of the pump.
You liar, Bud kicked your ass and you know it. You must have breathed a
long sigh of relief that Bud decided not to waste time with a moron like
you anymore.
duke
2017-10-12 17:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Fawley is a hokum. There is no reservoir on the suction of the pump.
You liar, Bud kicked your ass and you know it. You must have breathed a
long sigh of relief that Bud decided not to waste time with a moron like
you anymore.
You are bud's favorite hokum.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-10-12 17:15:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Fawley is a hokum. There is no reservoir on the suction of the pump.
You liar, Bud kicked your ass and you know it. You must have breathed a
long sigh of relief that Bud decided not to waste time with a moron like
you anymore.
You are bud's
That would be Dr. Frawley to you, Duke.
Rudy Canoza
2017-10-12 17:24:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Fawley is a hokum. There is no reservoir on the suction of the pump.
You liar, Bud kicked your ass and you know it. You must have breathed a
long sigh of relief that Bud decided not to waste time with a moron like
you anymore.
You are bud's
That would be Dr. Frawley to you, Duke.
That's right!
Ted
2017-10-12 19:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Fawley is a hokum. There is no reservoir on the suction of the pump.
You liar, Bud kicked your ass and you know it. You must have breathed a
long sigh of relief that Bud decided not to waste time with a moron like
you anymore.
You are bud's
That would be Dr. Frawley to you, Duke.
That's right!
Yep, Bud is an accomplished computer scientist, but Duke is just an
incompetent fake engineer.
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-12 19:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
computer scientist
Ted
2017-10-12 22:30:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
computer scientist
That's right, Rudy knows his way around computers too.
duke
2017-10-13 17:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Fawley is a hokum. There is no reservoir on the suction of the pump.
You liar, Bud kicked your ass and you know it. You must have breathed a
long sigh of relief that Bud decided not to waste time with a moron like
you anymore.
You are bud's
That would be Dr. Frawley to you, Duke.
I think dick frawley is more appropriate.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

Loading...