From: Pete C. on

hls wrote:
>
> "chuckcar" <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D7263325FE6Fchuck(a)127.0.0.1...
> > "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in
> > news:KvCdnamBpIUpwHjWnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com:
> >
> >>
> >> "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4(a)snet.net> wrote in message news:4be4c341$0$16324
> >>> The suction lift is measured from the surface of the liquid to the
> >>> pump, the amount of pipe under the surface of the liquid has no
> >>> bearing on the suction lift as the liquid pressures are balanced
> >>> regardless of that depth. The length of the subsurface pipe is only
> >>> relevant to frictional velocity losses.
> >>
> >> Quite correct, and I should have mentioned this. I was just going
> >> after his 30 foot statement.
> >>
>
> That 30 foot statement only applies if your pump is one that operates
> on reduction of atmospheric pressure. Those types of pumps can only
> lift a column of fluid which has a pressure of atmospheric or less. But,
> you could do it in stages, of course. Several stations at 30 foot intervals
> and you can be over a small mountain.

The suction lift limitation is a function of the atmospheric pressure on
the surface of the liquid, the weight of the liquid and the vacuum
created on the suction side of the pump. It has no bearing on the output
side of the pump and the maximum "head". There is no need whatsoever for
pumping stations at 30' intervals as the pumps can readily push the
fluid much higher than they can suck it.
From: hls on

"Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4(a)snet.net> wrote in message
news:4be6ecdf$0$19149$ec3e2dad(a)unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
>
> hls wrote:
>>
>> "chuckcar" <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D7263325FE6Fchuck(a)127.0.0.1...
>> > "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in
>> > news:KvCdnamBpIUpwHjWnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4(a)snet.net> wrote in message news:4be4c341$0$16324
>> >>> The suction lift is measured from the surface of the liquid to the
>> >>> pump, the amount of pipe under the surface of the liquid has no
>> >>> bearing on the suction lift as the liquid pressures are balanced
>> >>> regardless of that depth. The length of the subsurface pipe is only
>> >>> relevant to frictional velocity losses.
>> >>
>> >> Quite correct, and I should have mentioned this. I was just going
>> >> after his 30 foot statement.
>> >>
>>
>> That 30 foot statement only applies if your pump is one that operates
>> on reduction of atmospheric pressure. Those types of pumps can only
>> lift a column of fluid which has a pressure of atmospheric or less. But,
>> you could do it in stages, of course. Several stations at 30 foot
>> intervals
>> and you can be over a small mountain.
>
> The suction lift limitation is a function of the atmospheric pressure on
> the surface of the liquid, the weight of the liquid and the vacuum
> created on the suction side of the pump. It has no bearing on the output
> side of the pump and the maximum "head". There is no need whatsoever for
> pumping stations at 30' intervals as the pumps can readily push the
> fluid much higher than they can suck it.

If they can push, then they are no longer operating on the vacuum principle.
Simple vacuum pumps cannot lift a column higher that the approximate
30 odd feet. And as you go higher in elevation, that 30 odd feet will drop
as the air pressure drops. Some of these pumps simply lift the fluid past
a foot valve or check valve and there is no positive displacement. A lot
of the old potable water wells worked this way.

We are basically in agreement on all these things, and we understand
them the same way.

From: hls on

"Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4(a)snet.net> wrote in message
news:4be6ecdf$0$19149$ec3e2dad(a)unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
>
> hls wrote:

By the way, do you have any experience with ram pumps? Nowadays
nobody much knows about them.

I think Sears and Montgomery Ward used to sell them.

They were mostly used for potable water systems where there was no
power to pump the water. With a little "head", their oscillating diaphragms
could pump water a long way, at small volumes. But it was enough to
bring water up from a spring or a creek, and you could keep enough
water in your cistern or holding tank to keep you going.

Last one of these I saw was a totally homemade one, made from PVC
pipe and simple hardware.

From: Pete C. on

hls wrote:
>
> "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4(a)snet.net> wrote in message
> news:4be6ecdf$0$19149$ec3e2dad(a)unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
> >
> > hls wrote:
>
> By the way, do you have any experience with ram pumps? Nowadays
> nobody much knows about them.
>
> I think Sears and Montgomery Ward used to sell them.
>
> They were mostly used for potable water systems where there was no
> power to pump the water. With a little "head", their oscillating diaphragms
> could pump water a long way, at small volumes. But it was enough to
> bring water up from a spring or a creek, and you could keep enough
> water in your cistern or holding tank to keep you going.
>
> Last one of these I saw was a totally homemade one, made from PVC
> pipe and simple hardware.

I've seen designs for them. Pretty simple really, relying on a "water
hammer" effect to force a bit of water through a check valve on each
cycle. Only pumps a small portion of the flow through it, but simple and
effective. Good for pumping from a flowing stream up to an elevated
storage tank for gravity feed to a cabin.
From: cuhulin on
On the web,
Ram Pumps

I don't have any experience with Ram Pumps/Hydraulic Ram Pumps.Whatever.

Pale Rider (Clint Eastwood) movie.In the movie they used a lot of water
pressure and hoses for washing away dirt, mining for gold.

I wonder what sort of progress they are making about that oil problem in
the Gulf of Mexico?
cuhulin