On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:27:34 -0700, mike wrote:

You can mitigate this problem by putting a reservoir at the stationary
end so small changes in volume don't change the level much.

What?

On Jun 7, 8:48*pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:27:34 -0700, mike wrote:
You can mitigate this problem by putting a reservoir at the stationary
end so small changes in volume don't change the level much.

What?

Yeah, at first that sounded counterproductive to me too (just hiding
your inaccuracy), but as long as the reservoir is sufficiently large
and you don't need 0.1 mm precision, that allows you to get "very
close" without having to see both ends of your "device" at the same
time.

Putting a mark on the other end of the tube, at the same level as the
reservoir would get you even closer...

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:23:49 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:42:07 -0500, Atila Iskander wrote:
The bottoms don't need to be even with each other He has only to define
a baseline ABOVE the barrels and measure down to the water level to
verify.
Eg Put a 2x4 on top of the taller barrel, so that it overhangs the
other one, and then measure down from the 2x4

... just not a 2x4 from HD, because theirs are usually banana-shaped :-)

That's very funny. Well, not really funny when you're trying to get a
straight piece.

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 22:26:49 -0700 (PDT), Larry Fishel
wrote:

On Jun 7, 8:48*pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:27:34 -0700, mike wrote:
You can mitigate this problem by putting a reservoir at the stationary
end so small changes in volume don't change the level much.

What?

Yeah, at first that sounded counterproductive to me too (just hiding
your inaccuracy), but as long as the reservoir is sufficiently large
and you don't need 0.1 mm precision, that allows you to get "very
close" without having to see both ends of your "device" at the same
time.

Putting a mark on the other end of the tube, at the same level as the
reservoir would get you even closer...


This is the setup:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2761098...in/photostream

I did a simpler test. Since the ground is approximately level and the
cinderblocks are the same height, I put a tape measure into each
barrel after a brief downpour and the water in each barrel is now
24.5" high which is the max since the overflow hose on the rainbarrel
is at that height (can't see it in the photo). There really was a
difference when I first hooked it up, as the rainbarrel was full and
the Rubbermaid garbage can was empty and the transfer just stopped
after maybe 8" had transferred, just about to that line you can see on
the Rubbermaid near the bottom. All I can think of was that something
was blocking it and subsequently got pushed out.

Note the use of ever popular duct tape holding down the screen over
the can. I'll do a neater job but the idea was to keep mosquitos out,
not to mention larger critters. The top for that can was lost at least
a decade ago.

I would have gotten larger barrels if I had any idea how much water
can actually be captured by these things. My water bill is now over
$500 a year so this really isn't a bad idea.

Also, arriving today, is a package of Mosquito Dunks which is
apparently some bacteria that kills mosquito larvae but not your pets.
It looks like 1/4 of a dunk per barrel will do for a month or so. That
means I will have enough for a few years.

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 22:26:49 -0700 (PDT), Larry Fishel
wrote:

On Jun 7, 8:48*pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:27:34 -0700, mike wrote:
You can mitigate this problem by putting a reservoir at the stationary
end so small changes in volume don't change the level much.

What?

Yeah, at first that sounded counterproductive to me too (just hiding
your inaccuracy), but as long as the reservoir is sufficiently large
and you don't need 0.1 mm precision, that allows you to get "very
close" without having to see both ends of your "device" at the same
time.

Putting a mark on the other end of the tube, at the same level as the
reservoir would get you even closer...

Agreed. But if you are looking for precision...

On Jun 8, 9:21*am, dgk wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 22:26:49 -0700 (PDT), Larry Fishel





wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:48 pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:27:34 -0700, mike wrote:
You can mitigate this problem by putting a reservoir at the stationary
end so small changes in volume don't change the level much.

What?

Yeah, at first that sounded counterproductive to me too (just hiding
your inaccuracy), but as long as the reservoir is sufficiently large
and you don't need 0.1 mm precision, that allows you to get "very
close" without having to see both ends of your "device" at the same
time.

Putting a mark on the other end of the tube, at the same level as the
reservoir would get you even closer...

This is the setup:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2761098...in/photostream

I did a simpler test. Since the ground is approximately level and the
cinderblocks are the same height, I put a tape measure into each
barrel after a brief downpour and the water in each barrel is now
24.5" high which is the max since the overflow hose on the rainbarrel
is at that height (can't see it in the photo). There really was a
difference when I first hooked it up, as the rainbarrel was full and
the Rubbermaid garbage can was empty and the transfer just stopped
after maybe 8" had transferred, just about to that line you can see on
the Rubbermaid near the bottom. All I can think of was that something
was blocking it and subsequently got pushed out.

Note the use of ever popular duct tape holding down the screen over
the can. I'll do a neater job but the idea was to keep mosquitos out,
not to mention larger critters. The top for that can was lost at least
a decade ago.

I would have gotten larger barrels if I had any idea how much water
can actually be captured by these things. My water bill is now over
$500 a year so this really isn't a bad idea.

Also, arriving today, is a package of Mosquito Dunks which is
apparently some bacteria that kills mosquito larvae but not your pets.
It looks like 1/4 of a dunk per barrel will do for a month or so. That
means I will have enough for a few years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the photo. I agree, must have been some gunk in the hose or
faucets.

Chip C
Toronto