On Sep 3, 5:47*pm, Lawrence wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:43:44 +0100, GB
wrote:









On 03/09/2012 13:44, Chris Holmes wrote:
Theoretical question.

My father in law recently read a thriller and part of the plot was
some Russian ganster types attempting to refuel a plane by using a
surface mounted pump to bring the fuel up 100 or 200 feel (from a
WWII
vintage storage tank).

Out of interest, did they have a hand pump or an electric one?
A very, very small plane has a fuel capacity of 200-300 litres. A
jet of
some sort, probably 20 to 200 times that. So, they might be raising
something between 200 kilos and 40 tonnes a distance of 200 feet
vertically, using a pump that is probably only 50% efficient.
That would take quite some time by hand. I bet that it was done in
10
minutes in the story?

Could you allow water to enter the pipe so that the fuel would float
to the top? Just a thought.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Water in aircraft fuel is a BIG no-no.

On Sep 3, 6:57*pm, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
John Williamson pretended :



Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Chris Holmes brought next idea :
Theoretical question.

My father in law recently read a thriller and part of the plot was
some Russian ganster types attempting to refuel a plane by using a
surface mounted pump to bring the fuel up 100 or 200 feel (from a WWII
vintage storage tank).

He reconned this was nonsense, as you cant go over about 30 feet as
you can't maintain a vacum above that.

This I am sure was true back in his National Service day.

Is it still the case? or has modern technology re-written the laws of
physics?

If not, how could you (ahem) get it up?

Would you need intermediate storage tanks every 30 feet or so and a
series of pumps?

Or is it just that "ye cannae change the laws of physics" and it can't
be done?

Curious Chris

The theoretical lift with a perfect vacuum is around 32 feet, but in
practice and depending upon the type of pump it will be nearer 15 feet..

That's for water. For petrol, the vapour pressure at normal temperatures is
much higher, so the maximum lift is lower than for water, depending on the
temperature.

Let me try to understand this...

So you are suggesting, that rather a near vacuum being created over
petrol, that instead of the vacuum you get petrol vapour?

Aside from that, petrol is lighter than water and therefore ought to
rise higher up the suction pipe, when pushed by atmospheric pressure.

--
Regards,
* * * * Harry (M1BYT) (L)http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly so. The same thing happens with hot water, usually called
cavitation.

On Sep 3, 11:15*pm, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:25:38 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:





Davey wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:50:13 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Chris Holmes wrote:
Theoretical question.

My father in law recently read a thriller and part of the plot was
some Russian ganster types attempting to refuel a plane by using a
surface mounted pump to bring the fuel up 100 or 200 feel (from a
WWII vintage storage tank).

He reconned this was nonsense, as you cant go over about 30 feet
as you can't maintain a vacum above that.

This I am sure was true back in his National Service day.

Is it still the case? or has modern technology re-written the laws
of physics?

If not, how could you (ahem) get it up?

Would you need intermediate storage tanks every 30 feet or so and
a series of pumps?

Or is it just that "ye cannae change the laws of physics" and it
can't be done?

Curious Chris

The answer is yes and no. Ultimately what do you mean by a surface
mounted pump?

There are forms of pump that have the motor at the top but use a
variety of tricks to produce pressure at the bottom of a well for
example..

But you cant SUCK petrol up very far, you have to BLOW it up :-)

Agreed. The standard type of water well pump has a pump at the very
bottom of the pipe, and the electric supply goes down to the pump,
so that the pump only has to push. Being immersed, it is
self-priming. If that type is not possible, then the only way I see
of doing what is suggested is to seal the tank, and then pressurise
it, to force the fuel upwards.

There are a couple of other ways I have seen...pumping part of what
you get up, down, and using a sort of venturi effect to get up more
than you pump down. The motor and primary pump stays at the top but
the business end is still at the bottom.

Er, what?
--
Davey.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's quite right.
They are called injector (pumps) and are commercially available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injector#Well_pumps

On 04/09/2012 08:33, charles wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
On 04/09/2012 01:14, wrote:
On 3 Sep, John Rumm wrote:

You can't suck it more than 30' since that is how high atmospheric
pressure will push it if you stick a vacuum in the pipe above it.
However you can push it to any height you like within reason. So if
the pipe is at the bottom, it can do 200' in one operation.

You could get a bit more than 30' with fuel (SG less than 1, guessing
between 0.7 and 0.8) so perhaps 40 feet, 200' no, but the pump could
have been to pressurise the tank.


Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.


but isn't that what editors are for?

I'm reading a novel, by an American, which is set in London. It's full of
howlers.

I'm currently reading a book where a character uses an LCD torch!

SteveW

SteveW wrote:
On 04/09/2012 08:33, charles wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
On 04/09/2012 01:14, wrote:
On 3 Sep, John Rumm wrote:

You can't suck it more than 30' since that is how high atmospheric
pressure will push it if you stick a vacuum in the pipe above it.
However you can push it to any height you like within reason. So if
the pipe is at the bottom, it can do 200' in one operation.

You could get a bit more than 30' with fuel (SG less than 1, guessing
between 0.7 and 0.8) so perhaps 40 feet, 200' no, but the pump could
have been to pressurise the tank.


Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.


but isn't that what editors are for?

I'm reading a novel, by an American, which is set in London. It's full of
howlers.

I'm currently reading a book where a character uses an LCD torch!

They burn well enough.

Hell there are whole films based on technical impossibilities. China
Syndrome etc .

SteveW



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 04/09/2012 08:33, charles wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
On 04/09/2012 01:14, wrote:
On 3 Sep, John Rumm wrote:

You can't suck it more than 30' since that is how high atmospheric
pressure will push it if you stick a vacuum in the pipe above it.
However you can push it to any height you like within reason. So if
the pipe is at the bottom, it can do 200' in one operation.

You could get a bit more than 30' with fuel (SG less than 1, guessing
between 0.7 and 0.8) so perhaps 40 feet, 200' no, but the pump could
have been to pressurise the tank.


Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.


but isn't that what editors are for?

I've never really understood what editors do.

I'm reading a novel, by an American, which is set in London. It's full of
howlers.

American authors writing error filled books about Britain seems to be a
genre in its own right. OTOH, I have no idea how a Donna Leon novel
would read to a Venetian, although the fact that the author has
requested that they are not translated into Italian may be a clue.

Colin Bignell

Tim Streater brought next idea :
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
John Williamson pretended :
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Chris Holmes brought next idea :
Theoretical question.

My father in law recently read a thriller and part of the plot was
some Russian ganster types attempting to refuel a plane by using a
surface mounted pump to bring the fuel up 100 or 200 feel (from a WWII
vintage storage tank).

He reconned this was nonsense, as you cant go over about 30 feet as
you can't maintain a vacum above that.

This I am sure was true back in his National Service day.

Is it still the case? or has modern technology re-written the laws of
physics?

If not, how could you (ahem) get it up?

Would you need intermediate storage tanks every 30 feet or so and a
series of pumps?

Or is it just that "ye cannae change the laws of physics" and it can't
be done?

Curious Chris

The theoretical lift with a perfect vacuum is around 32 feet, but in
practice and depending upon the type of pump it will be nearer 15 feet.

That's for water. For petrol, the vapour pressure at normal temperatures
is much higher, so the maximum lift is lower than for water, depending on
the temperature.
Let me try to understand this...

So you are suggesting, that rather a near vacuum being created over
petrol, that instead of the vacuum you get petrol vapour?

Yes, and at room temperature that's at about a third of atmospheric
pressure for petrol. That's assuming that petrol consists of a single
compound, which it doesn't, so you initially get a higher pressure as the
lighter fractions (Short chain hydrocarbons) boil off first, gradually
decreasing as all the light stuff is sucked through the pump.

Aside from that, petrol is lighter than water and therefore ought to rise
higher up the suction pipe, when pushed by atmospheric pressure.

When pushed by the difference between atmospheric pressure and the vapour
pressure of the petrol, it will rise less far than water when pushed by the
much bigger difference between atmospheric pressure and the water's vapour
pressure.

Course you also get water vapour above water and mercury vapour above
mercury. The salient point here is that these are a lot less than that for
petrol at ordinary temps and so you'll get nearer to a vacuum and so less
"lift" is lost.

Thanks for the explanation, I was not aware of any of that.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

SteveW wrote:
On 04/09/2012 08:33, charles wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
On 04/09/2012 01:14, wrote:
On 3 Sep, John Rumm wrote:

You can't suck it more than 30' since that is how high atmospheric
pressure will push it if you stick a vacuum in the pipe above it.
However you can push it to any height you like within reason. So if
the pipe is at the bottom, it can do 200' in one operation.

You could get a bit more than 30' with fuel (SG less than 1,
guessing
between 0.7 and 0.8) so perhaps 40 feet, 200' no, but the pump could
have been to pressurise the tank.

Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They
can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.

but isn't that what editors are for?

I'm reading a novel, by an American, which is set in London. It's
full of
howlers.
I'm currently reading a book where a character uses an LCD torch!
They burn well enough.

Hell there are whole films based on technical impossibilities. China
Syndrome etc .

But that was pure anti-nuke propaganda. TMI happened while I was in
California, and I had great difficulty explaining to local dimwits that
a molten reactor core, even if it melted through the containment, would
proceed no further (or not very far at any rate).


*shrug* of course it was. Just like the 'inconvenient truth' was pure
'spend more money on my green companies' propaganda.


EVERYTHING is propaganda these days. Money controls the flow of
bull**** through commercial media. Even if its not commercial you
agitate and lobby to get your man at the top and he staffs it with
people who can be relied upon to be 'on message'. Money sets the
political agenda, sets the academic agenda....buys the politicians, the
journalists, the academics.

And in the limit when things fall apart, buys the guns and the army to
keep you quiet. Permanently if necessary.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:17:09 +0100 John Rumm wrote :
You can't suck it more than 30' since that is how high atmospheric
pressure will push it if you stick a vacuum in the pipe above it.
However you can push it to any height you like within reason. So if
the pipe is at the bottom, it can do 200' in one operation.

Quite extraordinarily the record for concrete pumping is through a
vertical height of 715 m (2,346 ft)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_pump

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Chris Holmes wrote:
Theoretical question.

My father in law recently read a thriller and part of the plot was
some Russian ganster types attempting to refuel a plane by using a
surface mounted pump to bring the fuel up 100 or 200 feel (from a WWII
vintage storage tank).

He reconned this was nonsense, as you cant go over about 30 feet as
you can't maintain a vacum above that.

This I am sure was true back in his National Service day.

Is it still the case? or has modern technology re-written the laws of
physics?

No, physics remains as it was in the 1950s.

If not, how could you (ahem) get it up?

I take it that you are aware of the depth that oil reserves are below the
surface of the earth? The deepest so far has been around 35,000ft (10,000
metres). The average well depth in the US is 5,000 ft.

Oil is pumped up from these depths using what appear to be surface mounted
pumps. These are the "nodding donkeys" seen in oil fields around the world.
The appearance is an illusion the pump is actually at the bottom of the
well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpjack

Would you need intermediate storage tanks every 30 feet or so and a
series of pumps?

Or is it just that "ye cannae change the laws of physics" and it can't
be done?

No, your father was right you cannot suck water higher up a column than
approximately 30ft. Mercury can't be sucked up a column higher than
approximately 30 inches. For suction pumps the practical limit is much
lower. But these are not the only pumps in the world and pushing liquid up
a column can be done to impressive heights.

I suspect either the author was an idiot or the description of the pump was
not understood.

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 23:15:24 +0100, Davey
wrote:

There are a couple of other ways I have seen...pumping part of what
you get up, down, and using a sort of venturi effect to get up more
than you pump down. The motor and primary pump stays at the top but
the business end is still at the bottom.




Er, what?

Dead common around here ; look up 'foot valves' and 'well pump'.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.

Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:22:08 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

I'm reading a novel, by an American, which is set in London. It's full of
howlers.

Lots of fog, is there, and people in top hats?

Underclasses touching their forelocks (or cloth caps) and saying
"Gorblimey Guvnor". Ah, the sweet song of the ricket-ridden grimy
urchins playing football in the streets with the leftover opium pipes
from Mr Woo's China House.

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:09:44 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Theoretically you could suck say petol higher as it is less danse.

That's a macabre prospect.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.

Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.

Did you really expect that someone who is a novelist would actually have
even got that far?

Neville Shute maybe, Isaac Asimov...

E.g. I challenge you to find ANYTHING remotely relating to mathematics
or economics anywhere in any book by Jane Austen!

IIRC people just 'have money' which women spend or men gamble and drink
away. The only possible exception is Mansfield Park where the master of
the house has to bugger off to let the plot develop or to attend to
business matters in the West Indies. Or one other novel where an
impoverished minor member of the gentry arrives back years later having
killed enough Frenchman and captured enough ships to finally be an
acceptable marriage prospect.

Nearly all novelists are concerned solely with Yuman Interest

Trade is unmentionable. And as for engineering. Yuk! We don't want to
get our literary hands dirty with THAT.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:22:08 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

I'm reading a novel, by an American, which is set in London. It's full of
howlers.
Lots of fog, is there, and people in top hats?

Underclasses touching their forelocks (or cloth caps) and saying
"Gorblimey Guvnor". Ah, the sweet song of the ricket-ridden grimy
urchins playing football in the streets with the leftover opium pipes
from Mr Woo's China House.

Ah, the days when you could strike a grimly curmudgeon with your silver
tipped cane and the police would arrest him for being in your way.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:
Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They
can't be an expert on everything they mention in their novels.
Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at
least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.

Did you really expect that someone who is a novelist would actually
have even got that far?

Neville Shute maybe, Isaac Asimov...

E.g. I challenge you to find ANYTHING remotely relating to mathematics
or economics anywhere in any book by Jane Austen!

IIRC people just 'have money' which women spend or men gamble and
drink away. The only possible exception is Mansfield Park where the
master of the house has to bugger off to let the plot develop or to
attend to business matters in the West Indies. Or one other novel
where an impoverished minor member of the gentry arrives back years
later having killed enough Frenchman and captured enough ships to
finally be an acceptable marriage prospect.

True but these were just plot devices. And don't forget that in P&P, Mrs
Bennett is continually having the vapours at the prospect of losing the
house when Mr B pegs it. Her one ambition is that her girls marry well.


Cos she cant envisage any other future.
Actually in one of the novels there is a Mrs Smith IIRC that works as a
seamstress..

A good novelist (ISTM) writes about what they know about and tries to
avoid everything else.

that is of course true.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 04/09/2012 14:32, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.

Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.


I don't think the pump was particularly important to the plot. It was
only peripheral to the need to get the fuel to the surface. IIRC it had
been in storage for half a century, so I also wondered what sort of
condition it would be in after all that time. I don't think anyone
should read Jack Reacher novels if they are too worried about whether
the technology works.

What I found rather more disappointing, in another book, was the writer
of an historical novel using copper coins in England about three
centuries too early. I would expect a writer of historical novels to get
historical facts right.

Colin Bignell

On Sep 3, 1:44*pm, Chris Holmes wrote:
Theoretical question.

My father in law recently read a thriller and part of the plot was
some Russian ganster types attempting to refuel a plane by using a
surface mounted pump to bring the fuel up 100 or 200 feel (from a WWII
vintage storage tank).

He reconned this was nonsense, as you cant go over about 30 feet as
you can't maintain a vacum above that.

This I am sure was true back in his National Service day.

Is it still the case? or has modern technology re-written the laws of
physics?

If not, how could you (ahem) get it up?

Would you need intermediate storage tanks every 30 feet or so and a
series of pumps?

Or is it just that "ye cannae change the laws of physics" and it can't
be done?

Curious Chris

So far they've got it to the moon. The pump was a bit pricey though


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:
Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't
be an expert on everything they mention in their novels.
Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.

Did you really expect that someone who is a novelist would actually have even got that far?

Actually, I used to like Christopher Hodder Williams books as the stories
(and the physics) seem so well researched.

Tim

On 04/09/2012 08:33, charles wrote:
I'm reading a novel, by an American, which is set in London. It's full of
howlers.

American werewolf in London?

Andy

Nightjar wrote:
On 04/09/2012 14:32, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.

Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.


I don't think the pump was particularly important to the plot. It was
only peripheral to the need to get the fuel to the surface. IIRC it had
been in storage for half a century, so I also wondered what sort of
condition it would be in after all that time. I don't think anyone
should read Jack Reacher novels if they are too worried about whether
the technology works.

What I found rather more disappointing, in another book, was the writer
of an historical novel using copper coins in England about three
centuries too early. I would expect a writer of historical novels to get
historical facts right.


well byzantine copper goes back to 400 AD so when was the novel situated?

Colin Bignell


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 00:10:10 +0000 (UTC)
Jules Richardson wrote:

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:15:24 +0100, Davey wrote:
There are a couple of other ways I have seen...pumping part of
what you get up, down, and using a sort of venturi effect to get
up more than you pump down. The motor and primary pump stays at
the top but the business end is still at the bottom.

Er, what?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home...nt/electrical-
plumbing/1275136

Our well is about 85' deep, with a motor and pump on the top and the
jet down toward the bottom of the well.

The downside is the need to prime them before they'll work (well,
that and having two pipes rather than one), but they do get around
the limit of how high you can suck water with a conventional pump.

cheers

Jules

It says that once primed and used, they stay primed, so that shouldn't
be a problem after the pump is commissioned.
--
Davey.

On 04/09/2012 20:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 04/09/2012 14:32, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They
can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.

Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.


I don't think the pump was particularly important to the plot. It was
only peripheral to the need to get the fuel to the surface. IIRC it
had been in storage for half a century, so I also wondered what sort
of condition it would be in after all that time. I don't think anyone
should read Jack Reacher novels if they are too worried about whether
the technology works.

What I found rather more disappointing, in another book, was the
writer of an historical novel using copper coins in England about
three centuries too early. I would expect a writer of historical
novels to get historical facts right.


well byzantine copper goes back to 400 AD so when was the novel situated?

Byzantium is not England and, thanks to Charlemagne, by the ninth
century most of Europe was using the silver penny as the medium of exchange.

The novel was set in the 1300s and the context was that a rich merchant
only had a silver shilling (a coin that was not in circulation until
1509, when it was called a Testoon) to pay a tradesman as he disliked
the weight of copper coins, which were not in circulation until Charles
II introduced copper halfpennies and farthings in 1672.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:
On 04/09/2012 20:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 04/09/2012 14:32, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They
can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.

Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.


I don't think the pump was particularly important to the plot. It was
only peripheral to the need to get the fuel to the surface. IIRC it
had been in storage for half a century, so I also wondered what sort
of condition it would be in after all that time. I don't think anyone
should read Jack Reacher novels if they are too worried about whether
the technology works.

What I found rather more disappointing, in another book, was the
writer of an historical novel using copper coins in England about
three centuries too early. I would expect a writer of historical
novels to get historical facts right.


well byzantine copper goes back to 400 AD so when was the novel situated?

Byzantium is not England and, thanks to Charlemagne, by the ninth
century most of Europe was using the silver penny as the medium of
exchange.

The novel was set in the 1300s and the context was that a rich merchant
only had a silver shilling (a coin that was not in circulation until
1509, when it was called a Testoon) to pay a tradesman as he disliked
the weight of copper coins, which were not in circulation until Charles
II introduced copper halfpennies and farthings in 1672.


Ah. NOW it makes sense. Should have been silver pennies.

Its interesting how copper had value in the bronze age, but collapsed
when the iron age came along and only silver and gold had value
then..until the idea of money as a token, rather than something having
much intrinsic value, came along.


Colin Bignell



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sep 3, 1:44*pm, Chris Holmes wrote:
Theoretical question.

My father in law recently read a thriller and part of the plot was
some Russian ganster types attempting to refuel a plane by using a
surface mounted pump to bring the fuel up 100 or 200 feel (from a WWII
vintage storage tank).

He reconned this was nonsense, as you cant go over about 30 feet as
you can't maintain a vacum above that.

This I am sure was true back in his National Service day.

Is it still the case? or has modern technology re-written the laws of
physics?

If not, how could you (ahem) get it up?

Would you need intermediate storage tanks every 30 feet or so and a
series of pumps?

Or is it just that "ye cannae change the laws of physics" and it can't
be done?

You can't use air pressure to pump over 34 feet as that is as much
pressure as air can put on the column.

You can use mechanical means to raise it and when the pressure gets
too much for the plumbing do it in stages. They can get oil out of
wells hundreds of feet deep.

On Sep 4, 8:49*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 04/09/2012 14:32, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.

Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.

I don't think the pump was particularly important to the plot. It was
only peripheral to the need to get the fuel to the surface. IIRC it had
been in storage for half a century, so I also wondered what sort of
condition it would be in after all that time. I don't think anyone
should read Jack Reacher novels if they are too worried about whether
the technology works.

What I found rather more disappointing, in another book, was the writer
of an historical novel using copper coins in England about three
centuries too early. I would expect a writer of historical novels to get
historical facts right.

well byzantine copper goes back to 400 AD so when was the novel situated?

Colin Bignell

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Egyption copper goes back to 2000 odd BC.
But not as coins.
Even in this country is was mined then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_O...e_Copper_Mines

On Sep 5, 7:59*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sep 3, 1:44*pm, Chris Holmes wrote:





Theoretical question.

My father in law recently read a thriller and part of the plot was
some Russian ganster types attempting to refuel a plane by using a
surface mounted pump to bring the fuel up 100 or 200 feel (from a WWII
vintage storage tank).

He reconned this was nonsense, as you cant go over about 30 feet as
you can't maintain a vacum above that.

This I am sure was true back in his National Service day.

Is it still the case? or has modern technology re-written the laws of
physics?

If not, how could you (ahem) get it up?

Would you need intermediate storage tanks every 30 feet or so and a
series of pumps?

Or is it just that "ye cannae change the laws of physics" and it can't
be done?

You can't use air pressure to pump over 34 feet as that is as much
pressure as air can put on the column.

You can use mechanical means to raise it and when the pressure gets
too much for the plumbing do it in stages. They can get oil out of
wells hundreds of feet deep.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They also get it out by displacing it with seawater.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 14:41:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.

Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.

Did you really expect that someone who is a novelist would actually have
even got that far?

Neville Shute maybe, Isaac Asimov...

E.g. I challenge you to find ANYTHING remotely relating to mathematics
or economics anywhere in any book by Jane Austen!

Austins First Law of Economics is set out plainly at the start of her
first chapter of Pride and Prejudice:

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in
possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

Nick

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sep 3, 1:44 pm, Chris Holmes wrote:
Theoretical question.

My father in law recently read a thriller and part of the plot was
some Russian ganster types attempting to refuel a plane by using a
surface mounted pump to bring the fuel up 100 or 200 feel (from a WWII
vintage storage tank).

He reconned this was nonsense, as you cant go over about 30 feet as
you can't maintain a vacum above that.

This I am sure was true back in his National Service day.

Is it still the case? or has modern technology re-written the laws of
physics?

If not, how could you (ahem) get it up?

Would you need intermediate storage tanks every 30 feet or so and a
series of pumps?

Or is it just that "ye cannae change the laws of physics" and it can't
be done?

You can't use air pressure to pump over 34 feet as that is as much
pressure as air can put on the column.

I think you mean 'atmoshperic pressure' not 'air pressure'.

I can assure you that 1000psi of air pressure is perfectly capable of
blowingliquids more than 34 feet into the air.

You can use mechanical means to raise it and when the pressure gets
too much for the plumbing do it in stages. They can get oil out of
wells hundreds of feet deep.

No ****, sherlock?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Sep 4, 8:49 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 04/09/2012 14:32, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:
Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.
Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.
I don't think the pump was particularly important to the plot. It was
only peripheral to the need to get the fuel to the surface. IIRC it had
been in storage for half a century, so I also wondered what sort of
condition it would be in after all that time. I don't think anyone
should read Jack Reacher novels if they are too worried about whether
the technology works.
What I found rather more disappointing, in another book, was the writer
of an historical novel using copper coins in England about three
centuries too early. I would expect a writer of historical novels to get
historical facts right.
well byzantine copper goes back to 400 AD so when was the novel situated?

Colin Bignell
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Egyption copper goes back to 2000 odd BC.
But not as coins.
Even in this country is was mined then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_O...e_Copper_Mines

Bronze goes back a lot further than that.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Nick Odell wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 14:41:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Then again, it was a novel and novelists do make mistakes. They can't be
an expert on everything they mention in their novels.
Maybe not; but if it's a crucial plot device I expect them to at least
get something as simple and basic as pumping head right.
FFS, it's only primary school physics.
Did you really expect that someone who is a novelist would actually have
even got that far?

Neville Shute maybe, Isaac Asimov...

E.g. I challenge you to find ANYTHING remotely relating to mathematics
or economics anywhere in any book by Jane Austen!

Austins First Law of Economics is set out plainly at the start of her
first chapter of Pride and Prejudice:

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in
possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."


No that's Austen's Law. Austin's law is

"If it doesnt fail by virtue of being badly made on a Friday, the engine
will wear out or the lucas electrics develop and expensive fault, anyway"
Nick


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:47:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

I don't think the pump was particularly important to the plot. It was
only peripheral to the need to get the fuel to the surface.

Eh? What?
For ****'s sake, if the pump depicted in the novel was actually
incapable in reality of doing the job, the ant/protagonists would
still be stuck there, unable to go anywhere.
That's the kind of nit-picking detail that either makes a book worthy
of suspension of disbelief for me (and I'll carry on reading it) or
has me turning red at the ears and tossing the book in the bin,
followed by swift note to the author, informing him of my despicion of
physics illiterates.

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 22:43:47 +0100, Davey
wrote:

The downside is the need to prime them before they'll work (well,
that and having two pipes rather than one), but they do get around
the limit of how high you can suck water with a conventional pump.

cheers

Jules

It says that once primed and used, they stay primed, so that shouldn't
be a problem after the pump is commissioned.

No, they don't.
Not after the warranty is up, at any rate. You can absolutely
guarantee that when you really need water, the ******* will need to be
re-primed.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:32:53 +0100
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 22:43:47 +0100, Davey
wrote:

The downside is the need to prime them before they'll work (well,
that and having two pipes rather than one), but they do get around
the limit of how high you can suck water with a conventional pump.

cheers

Jules

It says that once primed and used, they stay primed, so that
shouldn't be a problem after the pump is commissioned.

No, they don't.
Not after the warranty is up, at any rate. You can absolutely
guarantee that when you really need water, the ******* will need to be
re-primed.

True, but they left that bit out of the description!
--
Davey.

On 05/09/2012 13:30, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:47:41 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

I don't think the pump was particularly important to the plot. It was
only peripheral to the need to get the fuel to the surface.

Eh? What?
For ****'s sake, if the pump depicted in the novel was actually
incapable in reality of doing the job, the ant/protagonists would
still be stuck there, unable to go anywhere.
That's the kind of nit-picking detail that either makes a book worthy
of suspension of disbelief for me (and I'll carry on reading it) or
has me turning red at the ears and tossing the book in the bin,
followed by swift note to the author, informing him of my despicion of
physics illiterates.

Then I suggest you avoid Jack Reacher novels entirely. I only buy them
if they are 50p from a charity shop and I have nothing better to read.

Colin Bignell

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:57:39 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Then I suggest you avoid Jack Reacher novels entirely.

I do. Long ago.

I only buy them
if they are 50p from a charity shop and I have nothing better to read.

Even then, they could be used more positively by spending the time
tearing out the pages and threading a string through each corner for
use in the staff /gardeners' loo.

On 05/09/2012 08:51, harry wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:59 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sep 3, 1:44 pm, Chris Holmes wrote:





Theoretical question.

My father in law recently read a thriller and part of the plot was
some Russian ganster types attempting to refuel a plane by using a
surface mounted pump to bring the fuel up 100 or 200 feel (from a WWII
vintage storage tank).

He reconned this was nonsense, as you cant go over about 30 feet as
you can't maintain a vacum above that.

This I am sure was true back in his National Service day.

Is it still the case? or has modern technology re-written the laws of
physics?

If not, how could you (ahem) get it up?

Would you need intermediate storage tanks every 30 feet or so and a
series of pumps?

Or is it just that "ye cannae change the laws of physics" and it can't
be done?

You can't use air pressure to pump over 34 feet as that is as much
pressure as air can put on the column.

You can use mechanical means to raise it and when the pressure gets
too much for the plumbing do it in stages. They can get oil out of
wells hundreds of feet deep.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They also get it out by displacing it with seawater.

I think that they actually get it out by the naturally occuring gas
pressure down there pushing it up. As the field depletes, the pressure
falls and they pump seawater in to maintain the pressure. The seawater
can also displace oil towards the well, but that is a secondary effect.

I remember seeing a nice little (probably 25MW) pump set being built for
this purpose some years ago. I can't remember but it was likely a GE
LM2500 as the gas generator and a DR61 turbine to drive the pump.

SteveW