On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:34:27 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Jeepers
wrote back on Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:32:27 -0600
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

I never had high school physics :^( Why I asked ;^)

O.K. At this point I admit I'm no doctor of physics. I also have to
admit it was my idea to install the top fill bung thinking it would be
easier to fill because I wouldn't be filling against a barrel full of
water. So I lose the argument. HOWEVER... I also want to leave the hose
attached to the top fill bung so I don't have to re-attach a water
filled, running, hose back to the cabin.

Actually, while it may not be "easier" to pump water the additional
distance to the top, the "hydrostatic load" is less. May not be a problem
when you are pumping into an empty barrel, but when you start pumping fluid
into a full pipeline, it isn't going to move. Pressure builds as water
doesn't compress, and until the stationary water "gets out of the way"
there is no place for the new water to go.
I learned about this from a biography of Mr LeTournou, who learned it
the hard way by coming back the next day and switching the pump back on, at
full power. I don't remember if he blew out the pump or a piece of pipe,
but it was a very expensive lesson

Thanks!
So just hang the hose through the top bung until the end of it rests
on the bottom of the tank, problem irrelevant.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Which, if any, fill location would require more or less force to fill
this barrel: the top hole or the bottom hole?

As you have discovered, this question is of less value
than some of the other questions, such as "will I need
to disconnect and reconnect hoses?"

Another question I would ask is "if the top hose splashes
into the barrel without a full siphon connection, would I
be in for less trouble with a small centrifugal pump?" I'd
expect having the water trying to backflow out the pump
everytime I shut it off would be more annoying than the
extra effort, or the complexity of adding checkvalves...

--Glenn Lyford

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show jim rozen
wrote back on 28 Nov 2004 10:29:33 -0800 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

I learned about this from a biography of Mr LeTournou,

Is that french for "Hydraulic Lock?"

:^)

Umm, I think it's French for "electrified earthmoving machines". :-)

He had an interesting point: his improvements to his machines meant he
could do the work of two men, but for some reason, contractors wouldn't
split the missing guys pay with him.

Other interesting detail, he learned welding as a helper, watching the
welder using the new-fangled oxy-acetylene method. Got "caught" trying it
out on his lunch break, and was fired as a helper, then hired back on as a
welder.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:10:38 -0600, Jeepers
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Just abit late maybe. But The bilge pump will struggle to fill that
tank. Give it a go, but it will be at best way under rated flow. They
are meant to work at 3-4' of water head.

O.k. got an argument to solve.

Have a 55 gal. barrel, on a 8 to 10 foot tall platform (to provide water
in deer camp).

It has three bungs. One on the bottom side (drain/flow). Two on the top
side. One for vent, one for fill.

There is another barrel in the bed of a pickup, full of water. There are
two pumps, one hand diaphragm type or one typical 12v bilge type. This
is the source of water to fill the high barrel.

The argument is that the water can be just as easily pumped into the
barrel through the drain bung, from below, as it could be through the
top fill bung. There is an assertion that the pressure inside the hose
is greater in the lower fill hose than in the upper fill hose, due to
the weight of the water in the barrel as it fills.

Which, if any, fill location would require more or less force to fill
this barrel: the top hole or the bottom hole?

In article ,
Old Nick wrote:

Just abit late maybe. But The bilge pump will struggle to fill that
tank. Give it a go, but it will be at best way under rated flow. They
are meant to work at 3-4' of water head.

I ended up using an old drill strapped to a 1x8 and a drill pump, the
kind that goes in a drill chuck. I have 110 in my truck. I took the
empty barrel to the creek bottom, drove right on down into the gravel
bed and hooked up the drill pump and dropped a hose over the side of my
1 ton 4x4, the other end went into the barrel in the bed. It took about
25 minutes to fill completely. I then drove back to camp and repeated,
except the tower barrel was a tad higher and the bottom barrel was a tad
lore, more on this later. The tower barrel has a single bung in the
bottom side and a vent in one of the top bungs covered in metal "lint
screen". The bottom bung goes to a PVC pipe down to a T, one goes to the
cabin, the other to a spigot. I would have pumped from the truck bed to
the tower, but hunting got in the way, so I had to drain the barrel in
the bed to one on the ground so I could use the truck. Anyway I ended up
pumping from the ground barrel to the tower barrel with the drill pump.
It pumped 50 of the 55 gallons into the tower tank before it reached
it's maximum head. But that was just fine.

Later I will add a second bung to the bottom side of the barrel for a
hot water line. I'll be using a RV propane hot water heater. But that is
a whole nuther story!

Thanks everyone who contributed in "learnin" me something!

--
Member AAAAAAAA
American Association Against Acronym Abuse And Also Ambiguity.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----