Discussion:
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
Add Reply
Marvin Sebourn
2017-10-14 17:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.

The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.

At its base there is only a Duke problem, with Duke trying to set up a situation where he is gloriously right, and his opponents are obviously wrong, and ignorant. But Duke fails to do this.

The “problem” is not that the pump supposedly will not work-that has not been determined-but that Duke, in a rush to prove others wrong, carelessly set up a situation where in his mind the pump would not operate. But in the real world, that is not necessarily so.

Duke refused to make any detail of his pump system design known, including information about the piping, the prime mover, or anything the piping valves. And information was requested several times. Yet he hid that information.

Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric motor as prime mover, the motor controls can be designed to soft-start the motor, and avoid over-current. This can be done in more than one way and is quite common. I believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor with a variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears ignorant of motor starters and their function, which is to reduce starting loads on electric motors. This is a grievous oversight.

Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a single speed electric motor, that the pump could be started with the discharge valve partially closed to control the load on the electric motor, and avoid exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon to do this. It would result in a successful start. Even in Duke’s deliberately vague system.

Duke also gives his “I know, you don’t, “tee hee hee” boast by not specifying the driver or prime mover in the original problem, yet magically comes up with-voila-an electric motor as a driver. This is the height of deviousness and/or ignorance. Why would a graduate engineer select only an electric motor, and not consider other prime movers, when no detail of the problem says the pump must be powered by an electric motor? Why-because this fits his desired mode where he thinks only he can be right, and all others will be wrong.

Duke promised no tricks. I cautioned that Duke might result to that mode, saying there would be a factor where the pump could not operate. He did just that. Trucky-Ducky, Tricky Dukey.

Duke refused to consider a pump driver or prime mover of another sort. Are there any? What about a pump driven by an internal combustion engine fueled by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas? Why not drive the pump by a turbine, either a gas turbine or a steam turbine? How about driving the pump by a hydraulic motor, or an air motor? The answer is because Duke is dedicated to prove others wrong and for Duke to appear knowledgeable. In his duplicity, mixed with a generous dollop of ignorance, Duke later specified only an electric motor as driver, after the fact, but not mentioning that in his original package, and refusing to detail it. So Duke has modified his original unspecified design.

Duke claims to be a graduate mechanical engineer. His pump won’t work.

I was (loosely described) a technician. My pumps worked. Over one hundred pumps for over a third of a century.

The point here is that there is not some technical detail that Duke knew and we did not know. The point is that Duke dishonestly set up the problem to fail, refusing to give necessary details of his pump installation, and in ignorance or deceit showed no awareness of any other prime mover or driver type, or motor starter, or discharge restriction of the pump during start-up.

Duke's goal was to be considered all-wise, and the rest of us ignorant and foolish. Maybe gay. But Duke didn't consider the problem carefully enough.

So to return to Duke’s original question, where an honest and knowledgeable Duke would have asked: “How long will it take for a pump to fill the tank, if the pump won’t work?”

If Duke makes some tippy-toe, tap dancing reply to this post, for my reply you only need re-read this post of mine.

Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.

There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-14 17:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
At its base there is only a Duke problem, with Duke trying to set up a situation where he is gloriously right, and his opponents are obviously wrong, and ignorant. But Duke fails to do this.
The “problem” is not that the pump supposedly will not work-that has not been determined-but that Duke, in a rush to prove others wrong, carelessly set up a situation where in his mind the pump would not operate. But in the real world, that is not necessarily so.
Duke refused to make any detail of his pump system design known, including information about the piping, the prime mover, or anything the piping valves. And information was requested several times. Yet he hid that information.
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric motor as prime mover, the motor controls can be designed to soft-start the motor, and avoid over-current. This can be done in more than one way and is quite common. I believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor with a variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears ignorant of motor starters and their function, which is to reduce starting loads on electric motors. This is a grievous oversight.
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a single speed electric motor, that the pump could be started with the discharge valve partially closed to control the load on the electric motor, and avoid exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon to do this. It would result in a successful start. Even in Duke’s deliberately vague system.
Duke also gives his “I know, you don’t, “tee hee hee” boast by not specifying the driver or prime mover in the original problem, yet magically comes up with-voila-an electric motor as a driver. This is the height of deviousness and/or ignorance. Why would a graduate engineer select only an electric motor, and not consider other prime movers, when no detail of the problem says the pump must be powered by an electric motor? Why-because this fits his desired mode where he thinks only he can be right, and all others will be wrong.
Duke promised no tricks. I cautioned that Duke might result to that mode, saying there would be a factor where the pump could not operate. He did just that. Trucky-Ducky, Tricky Dukey.
Duke refused to consider a pump driver or prime mover of another sort. Are there any? What about a pump driven by an internal combustion engine fueled by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas? Why not drive the pump by a turbine, either a gas turbine or a steam turbine? How about driving the pump by a hydraulic motor, or an air motor? The answer is because Duke is dedicated to prove others wrong and for Duke to appear knowledgeable. In his duplicity, mixed with a generous dollop of ignorance, Duke later specified only an electric motor as driver, after the fact, but not mentioning that in his original package, and refusing to detail it. So Duke has modified his original unspecified design.
Duke claims to be a graduate mechanical engineer. His pump won’t work.
I was (loosely described) a technician. My pumps worked. Over one hundred pumps for over a third of a century.
The point here is that there is not some technical detail that Duke knew and we did not know. The point is that Duke dishonestly set up the problem to fail, refusing to give necessary details of his pump installation, and in ignorance or deceit showed no awareness of any other prime mover or driver type, or motor starter, or discharge restriction of the pump during start-up.
Duke's goal was to be considered all-wise, and the rest of us ignorant and foolish. Maybe gay. But Duke didn't consider the problem carefully enough.
So to return to Duke’s original question, where an honest and knowledgeable Duke would have asked: “How long will it take for a pump to fill the tank, if the pump won’t work?”
If Duke makes some tippy-toe, tap dancing reply to this post, for my reply you only need re-read this post of mine.
Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
Marvin Sebourn
you mean it is a you problem.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-14 17:48:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
At its base there is only a Duke problem, with Duke trying to set up a situation where he is gloriously right, and his opponents are obviously wrong, and ignorant. But Duke fails to do this.
The “problem” is not that the pump supposedly will not work-that has not been determined-but that Duke, in a rush to prove others wrong, carelessly set up a situation where in his mind the pump would not operate. But in the real world, that is not necessarily so.
Duke refused to make any detail of his pump system design known, including information about the piping, the prime mover, or anything the piping valves. And information was requested several times. Yet he hid that information.
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric motor as prime mover, the motor controls can be designed to soft-start the motor, and avoid over-current. This can be done in more than one way and is quite common. I believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor with a variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears ignorant of motor starters and their function, which is to reduce starting loads on electric motors. This is a grievous oversight.
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a single speed electric motor, that the pump could be started with the discharge valve partially closed to control the load on the electric motor, and avoid exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon to do this. It would result in a successful start. Even in Duke’s deliberately vague system.
Duke also gives his “I know, you don’t, “tee hee hee” boast by not specifying the driver or prime mover in the original problem, yet magically comes up with-voila-an electric motor as a driver. This is the height of deviousness and/or ignorance. Why would a graduate engineer select only an electric motor, and not consider other prime movers, when no detail of the problem says the pump must be powered by an electric motor? Why-because this fits his desired mode where he thinks only he can be right, and all others will be wrong.
Duke promised no tricks. I cautioned that Duke might result to that mode, saying there would be a factor where the pump could not operate. He did just that. Trucky-Ducky, Tricky Dukey.
Duke refused to consider a pump driver or prime mover of another sort. Are there any? What about a pump driven by an internal combustion engine fueled by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas? Why not drive the pump by a turbine, either a gas turbine or a steam turbine? How about driving the pump by a hydraulic motor, or an air motor? The answer is because Duke is dedicated to prove others wrong and for Duke to appear knowledgeable. In his duplicity, mixed with a generous dollop of ignorance, Duke later specified only an electric motor as driver, after the fact, but not mentioning that in his original package, and refusing to detail it. So Duke has modified his original unspecified design.
Duke claims to be a graduate mechanical engineer. His pump won’t work.
I was (loosely described) a technician. My pumps worked. Over one hundred pumps for over a third of a century.
The point here is that there is not some technical detail that Duke knew and we did not know. The point is that Duke dishonestly set up the problem to fail, refusing to give necessary details of his pump installation, and in ignorance or deceit showed no awareness of any other prime mover or driver type, or motor starter, or discharge restriction of the pump during start-up.
Duke's goal was to be considered all-wise, and the rest of us ignorant and foolish. Maybe gay. But Duke didn't consider the problem carefully enough.
So to return to Duke’s original question, where an honest and knowledgeable Duke would have asked: “How long will it take for a pump to fill the tank, if the pump won’t work?”
If Duke makes some tippy-toe, tap dancing reply to this post, for my reply you only need re-read this post of mine.
Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
Marvin Sebourn



AA
Ted
2017-10-15 06:21:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work
is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
At its base there is only a Duke problem, with Duke trying to set up a
situation where he is gloriously right, and his opponents are obviously
wrong, and ignorant. But Duke fails to do this.
The “problem” is not that the pump supposedly will not work-that has not
been determined-but that Duke, in a rush to prove others wrong,
carelessly set up a situation where in his mind the pump would not
operate. But in the real world, that is not necessarily so.
Duke refused to make any detail of his pump system design known,
including information about the piping, the prime mover, or anything the
piping valves. And information was requested several times. Yet he hid that information.
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric motor as prime
mover, the motor controls can be designed to soft-start the motor, and
avoid over-current. This can be done in more than one way and is quite
common. I believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor with a
variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears ignorant of motor starters
and their function, which is to reduce starting loads on electric
motors. This is a grievous oversight.
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a single speed
electric motor, that the pump could be started with the discharge valve
partially closed to control the load on the electric motor, and avoid
exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon to do this. It
would result in a successful start. Even in Duke’s deliberately vague system.
Duke also gives his “I know, you don’t, “tee hee hee” boast by not
specifying the driver or prime mover in the original problem, yet
magically comes up with-voila-an electric motor as a driver. This is the
height of deviousness and/or ignorance. Why would a graduate engineer
select only an electric motor, and not consider other prime movers, when
no detail of the problem says the pump must be powered by an electric
motor? Why-because this fits his desired mode where he thinks only he
can be right, and all others will be wrong.
Duke promised no tricks. I cautioned that Duke might result to that
mode, saying there would be a factor where the pump could not operate.
He did just that. Trucky-Ducky, Tricky Dukey.
Duke refused to consider a pump driver or prime mover of another sort.
Are there any? What about a pump driven by an internal combustion engine
fueled by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas? Why not drive the pump by a
turbine, either a gas turbine or a steam turbine? How about driving the
pump by a hydraulic motor, or an air motor? The answer is because Duke
is dedicated to prove others wrong and for Duke to appear knowledgeable.
In his duplicity, mixed with a generous dollop of ignorance, Duke later
specified only an electric motor as driver, after the fact, but not
mentioning that in his original package, and refusing to detail it. So
Duke has modified his original unspecified design.
Duke claims to be a graduate mechanical engineer. His pump won’t work.
I was (loosely described) a technician. My pumps worked. Over one
hundred pumps for over a third of a century.
The point here is that there is not some technical detail that Duke knew
and we did not know. The point is that Duke dishonestly set up the
problem to fail, refusing to give necessary details of his pump
installation, and in ignorance or deceit showed no awareness of any
other prime mover or driver type, or motor starter, or discharge
restriction of the pump during start-up.
Duke's goal was to be considered all-wise, and the rest of us ignorant
and foolish. Maybe gay. But Duke didn't consider the problem carefully enough.
So to return to Duke’s original question, where an honest and
knowledgeable Duke would have asked: “How long will it take for a pump
to fill the tank, if the pump won’t work?”
If Duke makes some tippy-toe, tap dancing reply to this post, for my
reply you only need re-read this post of mine.
Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
Marvin Sebourn
http://youtu.be/RaxVwD-HvNU
AA
Yes, definitely. To say that was awesome would be an understatement. Marvin
rox!
Marvin Sebourn
2017-10-15 04:03:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
At its base there is only a Duke problem, with Duke trying to set up a situation where he is gloriously right, and his opponents are obviously wrong, and ignorant. But Duke fails to do this.
The “problem” is not that the pump supposedly will not work-that has not been determined-but that Duke, in a rush to prove others wrong, carelessly set up a situation where in his mind the pump would not operate. But in the real world, that is not necessarily so.
Duke refused to make any detail of his pump system design known, including information about the piping, the prime mover, or anything the piping valves. And information was requested several times. Yet he hid that information.
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric motor as prime mover, the motor controls can be designed to soft-start the motor, and avoid over-current. This can be done in more than one way and is quite common. I believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor with a variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears ignorant of motor starters and their function, which is to reduce starting loads on electric motors. This is a grievous oversight.
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a single speed electric motor, that the pump could be started with the discharge valve partially closed to control the load on the electric motor, and avoid exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon to do this. It would result in a successful start. Even in Duke’s deliberately vague system.
Duke also gives his “I know, you don’t, “tee hee hee” boast by not specifying the driver or prime mover in the original problem, yet magically comes up with-voila-an electric motor as a driver. This is the height of deviousness and/or ignorance. Why would a graduate engineer select only an electric motor, and not consider other prime movers, when no detail of the problem says the pump must be powered by an electric motor? Why-because this fits his desired mode where he thinks only he can be right, and all others will be wrong.
Duke promised no tricks. I cautioned that Duke might result to that mode, saying there would be a factor where the pump could not operate. He did just that. Trucky-Ducky, Tricky Dukey.
Duke refused to consider a pump driver or prime mover of another sort. Are there any? What about a pump driven by an internal combustion engine fueled by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas? Why not drive the pump by a turbine, either a gas turbine or a steam turbine? How about driving the pump by a hydraulic motor, or an air motor? The answer is because Duke is dedicated to prove others wrong and for Duke to appear knowledgeable. In his duplicity, mixed with a generous dollop of ignorance, Duke later specified only an electric motor as driver, after the fact, but not mentioning that in his original package, and refusing to detail it. So Duke has modified his original unspecified design.
Duke claims to be a graduate mechanical engineer. His pump won’t work.
I was (loosely described) a technician. My pumps worked. Over one hundred pumps for over a third of a century.
The point here is that there is not some technical detail that Duke knew and we did not know. The point is that Duke dishonestly set up the problem to fail, refusing to give necessary details of his pump installation, and in ignorance or deceit showed no awareness of any other prime mover or driver type, or motor starter, or discharge restriction of the pump during start-up.
Duke's goal was to be considered all-wise, and the rest of us ignorant and foolish. Maybe gay. But Duke didn't consider the problem carefully enough.
So to return to Duke’s original question, where an honest and knowledgeable Duke would have asked: “How long will it take for a pump to fill the tank, if the pump won’t work?”
If Duke makes some tippy-toe, tap dancing reply to this post, for my reply you only need re-read this post of mine.
Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
Marvin Sebourn
XXXXX This copy is given as a courtesy to Duke, as he appears to have missed our posts here, preferring to hide in the deeper thickets of AA where he might not be seen. This is to be expected, as he, without truth, refers to my being worried at my inadequacy in discussing various pumps. The only hesitation I experienced was that if I had any embarrassment, it would be for Duke, as he in this thread has given up his personal integrity, displayed his lack of professional knowledge, and made an almost unbelievable display of his abysmal professional conduct.

Okay, continuing, I know I'm verbose. Apple polly loggies.

This is Duke responding to 3% of my post, and doing so poorly. The other 97% he snipped.
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke, in the simple arrangement you gave us, is tripping the current limiting device on the electric motor the only possible outcome?
Yes. Immediately on starting the pump against no back pressure, the flowrate
will quickly rise. Although there is "no" head being developed, the flowrate
rising would quickly exceed the motor rating for the intended design, and trip
off line. That's exactly what happened in an event I'm familiar with.
Not necessarily true, Duke.

1) You completely ignored that the prime mover need not be an electric motor.

2) You completely ignored the possibility of a soft start by the motor controller, or other current limiting device.

3) You completely ignored the likelihood that the pump operator would restrict the output flow by partially pinching off the discharge valve, making a successful start.

4) Overall here, you appear completely ignorant.

Duke: >That's exactly what happened in an event I'm familiar with.
Clearly a/some engineering correction would need to be made. Attaching a
vertical pipe from the pump outlet to the top of the tank and pre filling it
would provide the 500 ft tdh the pump is designed for to then flow at 1000 gpm
with the selected rated driver for the situation.

Duke: >I intended this for 2 clowns that had no idea of pumps. At least you tried, and I hope learned something.

Duke, it’s harsh, but I learned that you do not always tell the truth, that you change operating criteria after the initial declaration of such, that you are not very knowledgeable about pump start-up or motor control, that you may be quite ignorant of the use of other prime movers, that you try and pull off a simple victory while ignoring specifics, and that I cannot trust you.

Of the entirety of my post, you snipped 97%, leaving only 3% of what I wrote remaining. When you replied to this, or addressed it, you were wrong again.

Illustrating this-no, the pump driver or prime mover need not be an electric motor. You didn’t specify this at the start. To bring it up as the only alternative is dishonest and technically ignorant. And even if there is an electric motor as a driver, the breaker need not be tripped if a soft start is used, or if the operator restricts the pump discharge by partially closing the discharge valve on the pump.

And the 97% you clipped, that is, the number 97 reminds me of the old Weider(?) body building ads on the back of Superman comics. Duke, you are the 97 pound mental and ethical weakling, with sand kicked in you face by those mean old bullies who tell the truth, can form a logical argument, and who can reason. Looks like you are a three-percenter, Duke. Three-percent knowledgeable. Another denial of a Duke untruth. Duke, the three percenter, 3% right, 97% wrong.

Here is the 97% of my post that Duke snipped. I’ve left the 3% in that he didn’t snip, because I don’t want to bother with it. Killing a dead horse, etc.

BEGIN: "There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.

The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.

At its base there is only a Duke problem, with Duke trying to set up a situation where he is gloriously right, and his opponents are obviously wrong, and ignorant. But Duke fails to do this.

The “problem” is not that the pump supposedly will not work-that has not been determined-but that Duke, in a rush to prove others wrong, carelessly set up a situation where in his mind the pump would not operate. But in the real world, that is not necessarily so.

Duke refused to make any detail of his pump system design known, including information about the piping, the prime mover, or anything the piping valves. And information was requested several times. Yet he hid that information.

Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric motor as prime mover, the motor controls can be designed to soft-start the motor, and avoid over-current. This can be done in more than one way and is quite common. I believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor with a variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears ignorant of motor starters and their function, which is to reduce starting loads on electric motors. This is a grievous oversight.

Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a single speed electric motor, that the pump could be started with the discharge valve partially closed to control the load on the electric motor, and avoid exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon to do this. It would result in a successful start. Even in Duke’s deliberately vague system.

Duke also gives his “I know, you don’t, “tee hee hee” boast by not specifying the driver or prime mover in the original problem, yet magically comes up with-voila-an electric motor as a driver. This is the height of deviousness and/or ignorance. Why would a graduate engineer select only an electric motor, and not consider other prime movers, when no detail of the problem says the pump must be powered by an electric motor? Why-because this fits his desired mode where he thinks only he can be right, and all others will be wrong.

Duke promised no tricks. I cautioned that Duke might result to that mode, saying there would be a factor where the pump could not operate. He did just that. Trucky-Ducky, Tricky Dukey.

Duke refused to consider a pump driver or prime mover of another sort. Are there any? What about a pump driven by an internal combustion engine fueled by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas? Why not drive the pump by a turbine, either a gas turbine or a steam turbine? How about driving the pump by a hydraulic motor, or an air motor? The answer is because Duke is dedicated to prove others wrong and for Duke to appear knowledgeable. In his duplicity, mixed with a generous dollop of ignorance, Duke later specified only an electric motor as driver, after the fact, but not mentioning that in his original package, and refusing to detail it. So Duke has modified his original unspecified design.

Duke claims to be a graduate mechanical engineer. His pump won’t work.

I was (loosely described) a technician. My pumps worked. Over one hundred pumps for over a third of a century.

The point here is that there is not some technical detail that Duke knew and we did not know. The point is that Duke dishonestly set up the problem to fail, refusing to give necessary details of his pump installation, and in ignorance or deceit showed no awareness of any other prime mover or driver type, or motor starter, or discharge restriction of the pump during start-up.

Duke's goal was to be considered all-wise, and the rest of us ignorant and foolish. Maybe gay. But Duke didn't consider the problem carefully enough.

So to return to Duke’s original question, where an honest and knowledgeable Duke would have asked: “How long will it take for a pump to fill the tank, if the pump won’t work?”

If Duke makes some tippy-toe, tap dancing reply to this post, for my reply you only need re-read this post of mine.

Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.

continued below
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Clearly a/some engineering correction would need to be made. Attaching a
vertical pipe from the pump outlet to the top of the tank and pre filling it
would provide the 500 ft tdh the pump is designed for to then flow at 1000 gpm
with the selected rated driver for the situation.
I intended this for 2 clowns that had no idea of pumps.
Duke: At least you tried, and I hope learned something.

I did, and it concerns your integrity and professional knowledge. Negative on both.

Too bad you couldn't enter into an honest discussion, Duke. I would have welcomed it.

There is no pump problem, only a Duke problem.
TINPPOADP.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com
Peter Pan
2017-10-15 05:59:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Marvin Sebourn <***@aol.com> wrote:

<more snippage>
Post by Marvin Sebourn
And the 97% you clipped, that is, the number 97 reminds
me of the old Weider(?) body building ads on the back of
Superman comics. Duke, you are the 97 pound mental and
ethical weakling, with sand kicked in you face by those
mean old bullies who tell the truth, can form a logical
argument, and who can reason. Looks like you are a
three-percenter, Duke. Three-percent knowledgeable.
Another denial of a Duke untruth. Duke, the three
percenter, 3% right, 97% wrong.
LOL. Duke is the 3 Percenter of Usenet.
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric
motor as prime mover, the motor controls can be designed
to soft-start the motor, and avoid over-current. This can
be done in more than one way and is quite common. I
believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor
with a variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears
ignorant of motor starters and their function, which is
to reduce starting loads on electric motors. This is a
grievous oversight.
I had guessed that duke was trying to use a synchronous
motor with his pump. I suggested using a variable-speed
induction motor instead, thinking it could be controlled
easily like a dc motor. Some googling relieved me of
that misunderstanding, but an induction motor with VFD
could be made to work. A dc motor would work fine too.
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a
single speed electric motor, that the pump could be
started with the discharge valve partially closed to
control the load on the electric motor, and avoid
exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon
to do this. It would result in a successful start. Even
in Duke’s deliberately vague system.
Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.
continued below
<from the original thread:>
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke, in the simple arrangement you gave us, is tripping the current limiting
device on the electric motor the only possible outcome?
Yes. Immediately on starting the pump against no back pressure, the flowrate
will quickly rise. Although there is "no" head being developed, the flowrate
rising would quickly exceed the motor rating for the intended design, and trip
off line. That's exactly what happened in an event I'm familiar with.
That's duke... 'I don't know how to do it, so it can't
be done.'

What a maroon. What an ignoranimus.
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Not necessarily true, Duke.
1) You completely ignored that the prime mover need not be an electric motor.
2) You completely ignored the possibility of a soft start by the motor controller, or
other current limiting device.
3) You completely ignored the likelihood that the pump operator would restrict the output
flow by partially pinching off the discharge valve, making a successful start.
4) Overall here, you appear completely ignorant.
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Clearly a/some engineering correction would need to be made. Attaching a
vertical pipe from the pump outlet to the top of the tank and pre filling it
would provide the 500 ft tdh the pump is designed for to then flow at 1000 gpm
with the selected rated driver for the situation.
I intended this for 2 clowns that had no idea of pumps.
Duke: At least you tried, and I hope learned something.
I did, and it concerns your integrity and professional knowledge. Negative on both.
Too bad you couldn't enter into an honest discussion, Duke. I would have welcomed it.
There is no pump problem, only a Duke problem.
TINPPOADP.
LOL. I bet his Duke Problem has followed him like a
plague for his entire life.
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn
Ted
2017-10-15 11:31:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
<more snippage>
Post by Marvin Sebourn
And the 97% you clipped, that is, the number 97 reminds
me of the old Weider(?) body building ads on the back of
Superman comics. Duke, you are the 97 pound mental and
ethical weakling, with sand kicked in you face by those
mean old bullies who tell the truth, can form a logical
argument, and who can reason. Looks like you are a
three-percenter, Duke. Three-percent knowledgeable.
Another denial of a Duke untruth. Duke, the three
percenter, 3% right, 97% wrong.
LOL. Duke is the 3 Percenter of Usenet.
LOL.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric
motor as prime mover, the motor controls can be designed
to soft-start the motor, and avoid over-current. This can
be done in more than one way and is quite common. I
believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor
with a variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears
ignorant of motor starters and their function, which is
to reduce starting loads on electric motors. This is a
grievous oversight.
I had guessed that duke was trying to use a synchronous
motor with his pump. I suggested using a variable-speed
induction motor instead, thinking it could be controlled
easily like a dc motor. Some googling relieved me of
that misunderstanding, but an induction motor with VFD
could be made to work. A dc motor would work fine too.
You and Marvin know much more about motors than I do.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a
single speed electric motor, that the pump could be
started with the discharge valve partially closed to
control the load on the electric motor, and avoid
exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon
to do this. It would result in a successful start. Even
in Duke’s deliberately vague system.
Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.
continued below
<from the original thread:>
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke, in the simple arrangement you gave us, is tripping the current limiting
device on the electric motor the only possible outcome?
Yes. Immediately on starting the pump against no back pressure, the flowrate
will quickly rise. Although there is "no" head being developed, the flowrate
rising would quickly exceed the motor rating for the intended design, and trip
off line. That's exactly what happened in an event I'm familiar with.
That's duke... 'I don't know how to do it, so it can't
be done.'
What a maroon. What an ignoranimus.
LOLOL! :)
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Not necessarily true, Duke.
1) You completely ignored that the prime mover need not be an electric motor.
2) You completely ignored the possibility of a soft start by the motor controller, or
other current limiting device.
3) You completely ignored the likelihood that the pump operator would restrict the output
flow by partially pinching off the discharge valve, making a successful start.
4) Overall here, you appear completely ignorant.
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Clearly a/some engineering correction would need to be made. Attaching a
vertical pipe from the pump outlet to the top of the tank and pre filling it
would provide the 500 ft tdh the pump is designed for to then flow at 1000 gpm
with the selected rated driver for the situation.
I intended this for 2 clowns that had no idea of pumps.
Duke: At least you tried, and I hope learned something.
I did, and it concerns your integrity and professional knowledge. Negative on both.
Too bad you couldn't enter into an honest discussion, Duke. I would have welcomed it.
There is no pump problem, only a Duke problem.
TINPPOADP.
LOL. I bet his Duke Problem has followed him like a
plague for his entire life.
No question about it. According to my Theory of Duke, it began at
least as far back as his adolescence.
duke
2017-10-15 18:39:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Yes. Immediately on starting the pump against no back pressure, the flowrate
will quickly rise. Although there is "no" head being developed, the flowrate
rising would quickly exceed the motor rating for the intended design, and trip
off line. That's exactly what happened in an event I'm familiar with.
That's duke... 'I don't know how to do it, so it can't
be done.'
What a maroon. What an ignoranimus.
No question about it. According to my Theory of Duke, it began at
least as far back as his adolescence.
How come you fled the problem immediately.

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
2017-10-15 18:57:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Yes. Immediately on starting the pump against no back pressure, the flowrate
will quickly rise. Although there is "no" head being developed, the flowrate
rising would quickly exceed the motor rating for the intended design, and trip
off line. That's exactly what happened in an event I'm familiar with.
That's duke... 'I don't know how to do it, so it can't
be done.'
What a maroon. What an ignoranimus.
No question about it. According to my Theory of Duke, it began at
least as far back as his adolescence.
How come you fled the problem immediately.
the dukester, American-American
What problem?
TheRealMccoy
2017-10-15 19:00:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
What problem?
See?

Comprehension problems.
duke
2017-10-15 18:36:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric
motor as prime mover, the motor controls can be designed
to soft-start the motor, and avoid over-current.
I had guessed that duke was trying to use a synchronous
motor with his pump. I suggested using a variable-speed
induction motor instead, thinking it could be controlled
easily like a dc motor. Some googling relieved me of
that misunderstanding, but an induction motor with VFD
could be made to work. A dc motor would work fine too.
How far down can you reduce rpm and still get the pump to do more than just stir
water? And would it be more effective than a shovel.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a
single speed electric motor, that the pump could be
started with the discharge valve partially closed to
control the load on the electric motor
Maybe a shovel would be just as good.
Post by Peter Pan
That's duke... 'I don't know how to do it, so it can't
be done.'
What a maroon. What an ignoranimus.
Waiting on your answers.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Not necessarily true, Duke.
1) You completely ignored that the prime mover need not be an electric motor.
Don't you understand yet that we were reviewing water flow with a motor driver.
No points.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
2) You completely ignored the possibility of a soft start by the motor controller, or
other current limiting device.
Would you get more than a dribble
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
3) You completely ignored the likelihood that the pump operator would restrict the output
flow by partially pinching off the discharge valve, making a successful start.
To a trickle.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
4) Overall here, you appear completely ignorant.
What am I missing here? That you are missing everything
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Clearly a/some engineering correction would need to be made. Attaching a
vertical pipe from the pump outlet to the top of the tank and pre filling it
would provide the 500 ft tdh the pump is designed for to then flow at 1000 gpm
with the selected rated driver for the situation.
I intended this for 2 clowns that had no idea of pumps.
Duke: At least you tried, and I hope learned something.
I did, and it concerns your integrity and professional knowledge. Negative on both.
Too bad you couldn't enter into an honest discussion, Duke. I would have welcomed it.
There is no pump problem, only a Duke problem.
TINPPOADP.
LOL. I bet his Duke Problem has followed him like a
plague for his entire life.
You quotation readers don't understand pumps.

the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-10-15 18:17:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Yes. Immediately on starting the pump against no back pressure, the flowrate
will quickly rise. Although there is "no" head being developed, the flowrate
rising would quickly exceed the motor rating for the intended design, and trip
off line. That's exactly what happened in an event I'm familiar with.
Not necessarily true, Duke.
Guaranteed.

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
2017-10-15 18:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Yes. Immediately on starting the pump against no back pressure, the flowrate
will quickly rise. Although there is "no" head being developed, the flowrate
rising would quickly exceed the motor rating for the intended design, and trip
off line. That's exactly what happened in an event I'm familiar with.
Not necessarily true, Duke.
Guaranteed.
the dukester, American-American
Even those of us who never worked with pumps know it isn't true, and
especially now after Marvin's explanations.
duke
2017-10-15 18:14:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
Poor crybaby. Proposal readers don't know how pumps work.

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
2017-10-15 18:35:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work
is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
Poor crybaby. Proposal readers don't know how pumps work.
the dukester, American-American
Marvin's proved his knowledge and competence with pumps while you proved
you're the one who doesn't know how pumps work. You couldn't solve a
practical problem and you don't even understand the equations you used for
11 years. You don't know how utterly pathetic that is, Duke. You spent your
career as an incompetent buffoon trying to convince people you were an
engineer. I'm sure we're not the first to call 'fraud'.
Marvin Sebourn
2017-10-15 23:24:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
Poor crybaby.
Duke: >Proposal readers don't know how pumps work.

How foolish. How stupid. How ignorant. But that's Duke.

Engineers read and evaluate proposals.

My point regarding reading proposals is that I was familiar with the structure of the proposals. Precise and complete. No hiding of necessary information. I know how engineers, that is, real engineers approach a problem. Not like your silly

"Look at me, I'm a graduate engineer!...

My name is Duckamandias, Engineer of Engineers, look upon my works ye mighty, and despair!"

And all around was the wreck of broken pumps and the stuff of lies.

More lies, no surprise. Duke, show that no proposal reader understands a proposal, particularly in their field of education and experience. And don't forget, many are engineers.

TINPPOADP

Marvin Sebourn
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
*****
v***@gmail.com
2017-10-15 19:14:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
At its base there is only a Duke problem, with Duke trying to set up a situation where he is gloriously right, and his opponents are obviously wrong, and ignorant. But Duke fails to do this.
The “problem” is not that the pump supposedly will not work-that has not been determined-but that Duke, in a rush to prove others wrong, carelessly set up a situation where in his mind the pump would not operate. But in the real world, that is not necessarily so.
Duke refused to make any detail of his pump system design known, including information about the piping, the prime mover, or anything the piping valves. And information was requested several times. Yet he hid that information.
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric motor as prime mover, the motor controls can be designed to soft-start the motor, and avoid over-current. This can be done in more than one way and is quite common. I believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor with a variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears ignorant of motor starters and their function, which is to reduce starting loads on electric motors. This is a grievous oversight.
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a single speed electric motor, that the pump could be started with the discharge valve partially closed to control the load on the electric motor, and avoid exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon to do this. It would result in a successful start. Even in Duke’s deliberately vague system.
Duke also gives his “I know, you don’t, “tee hee hee” boast by not specifying the driver or prime mover in the original problem, yet magically comes up with-voila-an electric motor as a driver. This is the height of deviousness and/or ignorance. Why would a graduate engineer select only an electric motor, and not consider other prime movers, when no detail of the problem says the pump must be powered by an electric motor? Why-because this fits his desired mode where he thinks only he can be right, and all others will be wrong.
Duke promised no tricks. I cautioned that Duke might result to that mode, saying there would be a factor where the pump could not operate. He did just that. Trucky-Ducky, Tricky Dukey.
Duke refused to consider a pump driver or prime mover of another sort. Are there any? What about a pump driven by an internal combustion engine fueled by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas? Why not drive the pump by a turbine, either a gas turbine or a steam turbine? How about driving the pump by a hydraulic motor, or an air motor? The answer is because Duke is dedicated to prove others wrong and for Duke to appear knowledgeable. In his duplicity, mixed with a generous dollop of ignorance, Duke later specified only an electric motor as driver, after the fact, but not mentioning that in his original package, and refusing to detail it. So Duke has modified his original unspecified design.
Duke claims to be a graduate mechanical engineer. His pump won’t work.
I was (loosely described) a technician. My pumps worked. Over one hundred pumps for over a third of a century.
The point here is that there is not some technical detail that Duke knew and we did not know. The point is that Duke dishonestly set up the problem to fail, refusing to give necessary details of his pump installation, and in ignorance or deceit showed no awareness of any other prime mover or driver type, or motor starter, or discharge restriction of the pump during start-up.
Duke's goal was to be considered all-wise, and the rest of us ignorant and foolish. Maybe gay. But Duke didn't consider the problem carefully enough.
So to return to Duke’s original question, where an honest and knowledgeable Duke would have asked: “How long will it take for a pump to fill the tank, if the pump won’t work?”
If Duke makes some tippy-toe, tap dancing reply to this post, for my reply you only need re-read this post of mine.
Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
Marvin Sebourn
That is the most convoluted bunch of amateur Psychology bullshit I have seen in years. You are a FRAUD.
Ted
2017-10-15 20:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work
is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
At its base there is only a Duke problem, with Duke trying to set up a
situation where he is gloriously right, and his opponents are obviously
wrong, and ignorant. But Duke fails to do this.
The “problem” is not that the pump supposedly will not work-that has not
been determined-but that Duke, in a rush to prove others wrong,
carelessly set up a situation where in his mind the pump would not
operate. But in the real world, that is not necessarily so.
Duke refused to make any detail of his pump system design known,
including information about the piping, the prime mover, or anything the
piping valves. And information was requested several times. Yet he hid that information.
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric motor as prime
mover, the motor controls can be designed to soft-start the motor, and
avoid over-current. This can be done in more than one way and is quite
common. I believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor with a
variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears ignorant of motor starters
and their function, which is to reduce starting loads on electric
motors. This is a grievous oversight.
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a single speed
electric motor, that the pump could be started with the discharge valve
partially closed to control the load on the electric motor, and avoid
exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon to do this. It
would result in a successful start. Even in Duke’s deliberately vague system.
Duke also gives his “I know, you don’t, “tee hee hee” boast by not
specifying the driver or prime mover in the original problem, yet
magically comes up with-voila-an electric motor as a driver. This is the
height of deviousness and/or ignorance. Why would a graduate engineer
select only an electric motor, and not consider other prime movers, when
no detail of the problem says the pump must be powered by an electric
motor? Why-because this fits his desired mode where he thinks only he
can be right, and all others will be wrong.
Duke promised no tricks. I cautioned that Duke might result to that
mode, saying there would be a factor where the pump could not operate.
He did just that. Trucky-Ducky, Tricky Dukey.
Duke refused to consider a pump driver or prime mover of another sort.
Are there any? What about a pump driven by an internal combustion engine
fueled by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas? Why not drive the pump by a
turbine, either a gas turbine or a steam turbine? How about driving the
pump by a hydraulic motor, or an air motor? The answer is because Duke
is dedicated to prove others wrong and for Duke to appear knowledgeable.
In his duplicity, mixed with a generous dollop of ignorance, Duke later
specified only an electric motor as driver, after the fact, but not
mentioning that in his original package, and refusing to detail it. So
Duke has modified his original unspecified design.
Duke claims to be a graduate mechanical engineer. His pump won’t work.
I was (loosely described) a technician. My pumps worked. Over one
hundred pumps for over a third of a century.
The point here is that there is not some technical detail that Duke knew
and we did not know. The point is that Duke dishonestly set up the
problem to fail, refusing to give necessary details of his pump
installation, and in ignorance or deceit showed no awareness of any
other prime mover or driver type, or motor starter, or discharge
restriction of the pump during start-up.
Duke's goal was to be considered all-wise, and the rest of us ignorant
and foolish. Maybe gay. But Duke didn't consider the problem carefully enough.
So to return to Duke’s original question, where an honest and
knowledgeable Duke would have asked: “How long will it take for a pump
to fill the tank, if the pump won’t work?”
If Duke makes some tippy-toe, tap dancing reply to this post, for my
reply you only need re-read this post of mine.
Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
Marvin Sebourn
I just ate the most convoluted bunch of shit I have eaten in years. I am a SHIT-EATER.
Ewww! You're disgusting, ArtyJoe! Keep it to yourself!
v***@gmail.com
2017-10-15 21:04:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work
is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
At its base there is only a Duke problem, with Duke trying to set up a
situation where he is gloriously right, and his opponents are obviously
wrong, and ignorant. But Duke fails to do this.
The “problem” is not that the pump supposedly will not work-that has not
been determined-but that Duke, in a rush to prove others wrong,
carelessly set up a situation where in his mind the pump would not
operate. But in the real world, that is not necessarily so.
Duke refused to make any detail of his pump system design known,
including information about the piping, the prime mover, or anything the
piping valves. And information was requested several times. Yet he hid that information.
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric motor as prime
mover, the motor controls can be designed to soft-start the motor, and
avoid over-current. This can be done in more than one way and is quite
common. I believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor with a
variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears ignorant of motor starters
and their function, which is to reduce starting loads on electric
motors. This is a grievous oversight.
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a single speed
electric motor, that the pump could be started with the discharge valve
partially closed to control the load on the electric motor, and avoid
exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon to do this. It
would result in a successful start. Even in Duke’s deliberately vague system.
Duke also gives his “I know, you don’t, “tee hee hee” boast by not
specifying the driver or prime mover in the original problem, yet
magically comes up with-voila-an electric motor as a driver. This is the
height of deviousness and/or ignorance. Why would a graduate engineer
select only an electric motor, and not consider other prime movers, when
no detail of the problem says the pump must be powered by an electric
motor? Why-because this fits his desired mode where he thinks only he
can be right, and all others will be wrong.
Duke promised no tricks. I cautioned that Duke might result to that
mode, saying there would be a factor where the pump could not operate.
He did just that. Trucky-Ducky, Tricky Dukey.
Duke refused to consider a pump driver or prime mover of another sort.
Are there any? What about a pump driven by an internal combustion engine
fueled by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas? Why not drive the pump by a
turbine, either a gas turbine or a steam turbine? How about driving the
pump by a hydraulic motor, or an air motor? The answer is because Duke
is dedicated to prove others wrong and for Duke to appear knowledgeable.
In his duplicity, mixed with a generous dollop of ignorance, Duke later
specified only an electric motor as driver, after the fact, but not
mentioning that in his original package, and refusing to detail it. So
Duke has modified his original unspecified design.
Duke claims to be a graduate mechanical engineer. His pump won’t work.
I was (loosely described) a technician. My pumps worked. Over one
hundred pumps for over a third of a century.
The point here is that there is not some technical detail that Duke knew
and we did not know. The point is that Duke dishonestly set up the
problem to fail, refusing to give necessary details of his pump
installation, and in ignorance or deceit showed no awareness of any
other prime mover or driver type, or motor starter, or discharge
restriction of the pump during start-up.
Duke's goal was to be considered all-wise, and the rest of us ignorant
and foolish. Maybe gay. But Duke didn't consider the problem carefully enough.
So to return to Duke’s original question, where an honest and
knowledgeable Duke would have asked: “How long will it take for a pump
to fill the tank, if the pump won’t work?”
If Duke makes some tippy-toe, tap dancing reply to this post, for my
reply you only need re-read this post of mine.
Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
Marvin Sebourn
I just ate the most convoluted bunch of shit I have eaten in years. I am a SHIT-EATER.
Ewww! You're disgusting, ArtyJoe! Keep it to yourself!
FORGERY
Ted
2017-10-15 21:12:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Marvin Sebourn
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
The only reason Duke can claim that his hypothetical pump will not work
is because Duke thought he had designed it to fail, and thinks he did.
At its base there is only a Duke problem, with Duke trying to set up a
situation where he is gloriously right, and his opponents are obviously
wrong, and ignorant. But Duke fails to do this.
The “problem” is not that the pump supposedly will not work-that has not
been determined-but that Duke, in a rush to prove others wrong,
carelessly set up a situation where in his mind the pump would not
operate. But in the real world, that is not necessarily so.
Duke refused to make any detail of his pump system design known,
including information about the piping, the prime mover, or anything the
piping valves. And information was requested several times. Yet he hid that information.
Duke refused to consider that if there is an electric motor as prime
mover, the motor controls can be designed to soft-start the motor, and
avoid over-current. This can be done in more than one way and is quite
common. I believe AA or Ted mentioned using a synchronous motor with a
variable frequency drive, VFD. Duke appears ignorant of motor starters
and their function, which is to reduce starting loads on electric
motors. This is a grievous oversight.
Duke neglected to say that on start-up, even with a single speed
electric motor, that the pump could be started with the discharge valve
partially closed to control the load on the electric motor, and avoid
exceeding the maximum current usage. It is not uncommon to do this. It
would result in a successful start. Even in Duke’s deliberately vague system.
Duke also gives his “I know, you don’t, “tee hee hee” boast by not
specifying the driver or prime mover in the original problem, yet
magically comes up with-voila-an electric motor as a driver. This is the
height of deviousness and/or ignorance. Why would a graduate engineer
select only an electric motor, and not consider other prime movers, when
no detail of the problem says the pump must be powered by an electric
motor? Why-because this fits his desired mode where he thinks only he
can be right, and all others will be wrong.
Duke promised no tricks. I cautioned that Duke might result to that
mode, saying there would be a factor where the pump could not operate.
He did just that. Trucky-Ducky, Tricky Dukey.
Duke refused to consider a pump driver or prime mover of another sort.
Are there any? What about a pump driven by an internal combustion engine
fueled by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas? Why not drive the pump by a
turbine, either a gas turbine or a steam turbine? How about driving the
pump by a hydraulic motor, or an air motor? The answer is because Duke
is dedicated to prove others wrong and for Duke to appear knowledgeable.
In his duplicity, mixed with a generous dollop of ignorance, Duke later
specified only an electric motor as driver, after the fact, but not
mentioning that in his original package, and refusing to detail it. So
Duke has modified his original unspecified design.
Duke claims to be a graduate mechanical engineer. His pump won’t work.
I was (loosely described) a technician. My pumps worked. Over one
hundred pumps for over a third of a century.
The point here is that there is not some technical detail that Duke knew
and we did not know. The point is that Duke dishonestly set up the
problem to fail, refusing to give necessary details of his pump
installation, and in ignorance or deceit showed no awareness of any
other prime mover or driver type, or motor starter, or discharge
restriction of the pump during start-up.
Duke's goal was to be considered all-wise, and the rest of us ignorant
and foolish. Maybe gay. But Duke didn't consider the problem carefully enough.
So to return to Duke’s original question, where an honest and
knowledgeable Duke would have asked: “How long will it take for a pump
to fill the tank, if the pump won’t work?”
If Duke makes some tippy-toe, tap dancing reply to this post, for my
reply you only need re-read this post of mine.
Special thanks to Ted and Atlatl for insights.
There is no pump problem, there is only a Duke problem.
Marvin Sebourn
I just ate the most convoluted bunch of shit I have eaten in years. I am a SHIT-EATER.
Ewww! You're disgusting, ArtyJoe! Keep it to yourself!
YES I EAT SHIT
Ewww! :(
Loading...