"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3e44a64c_1@newsfeed...
Arguing physics with a physicist should be entertaining.

Gordon.


I don't know the people involved here. Who is the physicist? Why does
it matter?

David

If I were using the water flow to power the pump, why on earth would I want
to generate electricity and then drive a motor from it? Wouldn't gearing
work? What am I missing - it must be something obvious ..

May glorious Shamash make his face to shine upon you

Gilgamesh of Uruk
(Include Enkidu in the subject line to avoid the spam trap)
"Brian White" wrote in message
om...
Well, OZZ,
you will be wrong and wrong again without apology,
Actually the hammer pump (also better known as a hydram) uses 60% or
more of the energy DIRECTLY for useful work. Because there is no waste
of energy in conversion, mechanical to electical, electrical to
mechanical again, etc. it is almost impossible for a conventional
electrically powered pump to come close to that 60% OVERALL efficiency
figure!
I have that info from an issue of scientific america. The pulser pump
is a combined airlift pump and tromp. Please look that combination up
in any book over 15 years old. You will not find it. Why? Because it
wasnt there. Probably because it didnt exist.
Low pressure airlift pumps are NOT well scientifically described. Why?
They just extrapulated figures from high pressure airlift pumps. (I
know because my pump easily beat their gestimates)
They never actually bothered to make low pressure airlift pumps. Try
to find information about pumping up an incline with an airlift pump.
You will be a while! Yet it works. How good can it be? nobody knows.
The good thing is that you are begrudgingly argueing about semantics.
People are no longer saying that the pump itself is fake. It is a
start!
Anyway, low pressure tromps combined with low pressure airlift pumps
have NOT yet been yet been described by science. There are
interactions between the tromp and airlift sections which make the
whole system quite a deal more complex to describe than the 2 devices
working seperately.
Finally, if airlift is so inefficient, why do people use vacuum
cleaners? Wetvacs are clearly airlift pumps and it shouldnt be too
much of an imagination leap to realize that dry vacuums are too. And
feed trucks that blow animal feed into tall bins. That is airlift
pumps too. As are many deep wells. That water in your beverage, might
just have been airlifted!
http://nxtwave.tripod.com/gaiatech/pulser/index.htm has lots of pulser
info
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pulserpump/files/ is where the videos
can be found.
Brian White
Oz wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott writes

Both the air lift pump and hammer pump lift a proportion of water from
a
body of water that has a head over its destination without input of
energy from the outside by using some of the energy in the head. You
say both types are very inefficient.

They are in that only a small proportion of the available energy is used
for useful work.

Whether that matters or not depends on the situation.

Certainly neither can be considered as 'new' or 'not described
scientifically'.

The whole point of the thread is that some people DO have a use for
such a device. I am bringing it to their attention. You are the one
who is whining. My brother (a farmer) still uses the one in the video
after 15 years. Pulser pumps are not hard to make and I give enough
information on the web for inquisitive people to make one for
themselves. Guys like you, pontificating without trying to understand,
put people off making them. Therefore, you are actually retarding the
progress of science.
When did your curiosity die?
By the way, science is supposed to work like this: I do an
experiment, I report my findings,
you repeat my experiment and either validate or reject them. Your
right to reject is reduced if you do not repeat the experiment.
There is no point in me repeating it. I already know that it works.
Somebody else has to do the repeating. And then people will stop
listening to guys like you.
Somebody said you are a physicist. Even there, experiment and
repeatability is the proof of the science. Is that not so?
Brian White
Oz wrote in message ...
Brian White writes

Anyway, low pressure tromps combined with low pressure airlift pumps
have NOT yet been yet been described by science. There are
interactions between the tromp and airlift sections which make the
whole system quite a deal more complex to describe than the 2 devices
working seperately.

Then do the work, or pay someone to do it.
Whinging doesn't help.

I have no use for such a device.

Lots of people use hydroelectric power. Some of it is used to pump
water from shallow streams. It is not as easy or cheap (in practice)
as you make it sound, to use a low flow of water to turn gears to pump
water to various heights. That is why there are not many working water
wheels now.
The reality of water power today is that people generally do generate
electricity with waterpower and some of it is used to drive motors to
pump water. It is a very roundabout way to do it in my opinion.
A whole lot of people are missing the point!
Brian white
"Gilgamesh" wrote in message ...
If I were using the water flow to power the pump, why on earth would I want
to generate electricity and then drive a motor from it? Wouldn't gearing
work? What am I missing - it must be something obvious ..

May glorious Shamash make his face to shine upon you

Gilgamesh of Uruk
(Include Enkidu in the subject line to avoid the spam trap)
"Brian White" wrote in message

Brian White writes

The whole point of the thread is that some people DO have a use for
such a device. I am bringing it to their attention. You are the one
who is whining.

Hardly. Where did I ever say it wouldn;t work, nor could be useful?

My brother (a farmer) still uses the one in the video
after 15 years. Pulser pumps are not hard to make and I give enough
information on the web for inquisitive people to make one for
themselves.

OK, so you can give input-output specs and so on. Selecting an
appropriate pump requires knowing input power (in this case presumably
water) and expected (preferably guaranteed) output at various heads.

Just saying this is a wonderful system, cuts no ice.

Guys like you, pontificating without trying to understand,
put people off making them. Therefore, you are actually retarding the
progress of science.

Crap.

When did your curiosity die?
By the way, science is supposed to work like this: I do an
experiment, I report my findings,
you repeat my experiment and either validate or reject them. Your
right to reject is reduced if you do not repeat the experiment.

OK, post your I/O specs here then.

There is no point in me repeating it. I already know that it works.

What do you mean by 'works'?

Somebody said you are a physicist. Even there, experiment and
repeatability is the proof of the science. Is that not so?

Absolutely, let's see the specs.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Brian White writes

The power head involved is half a meter. (You can use one meter
because you are a physisist).

And the throughput of driving water?

The power flow (for you) is 600 liters
per minute.

To what head?

And you get to use 6 inch diameter pipes in the
construction.

So?

You can obviously devine the best depths and heights for
pumping because you say they are completely researched.

Doubtless. However it's your job to search for the refs and quote them.

(By the way, pulser pumps are not very energy efficient. Ram pumps are
really energy efficient). (Just to clear that up for interested
partys).

Actually ram pumps are not at all efficient. They are used where
efficiency is not important but simplicity, cost and reliability is.

OK, so you can give input-output specs and so on. Selecting an
appropriate pump requires knowing input power (in this case presumably
water) and expected (preferably guaranteed) output at various heads.

Just saying this is a wonderful system, cuts no ice.

Still waiting for some basic data.

OK, post your I/O specs here then.

There is no point in me repeating it. I already know that it works.

What do you mean by 'works'?

Somebody said you are a physicist. Even there, experiment and
repeatability is the proof of the science. Is that not so?

Absolutely, let's see the specs.

Still waiting.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

http://nxtwave.tripod.com/gaiatech/pulser/index.htm is the index to
the pulser section that gives all the information that oz needs.
I am not going to design a bluddy experiment for him when it is clear
that he is only interested in argueing. And the fact is, he doesnt
know what he is argueing about. Even from one post to the next the
story changes.
In this post he asks
And the throughput of driving water?
and follows it with a quote of me giving the throughput of driving
water!;
The power flow (for you) is 600 liters
per minute.
And he goes on with the crap about ram pumps being inefficient. That
is just plain wrong. I dont like praising the opposition but it is
fair to say that a good ram pump dilivers more of the energy from its
power source to its end use than ANY other hydropower device. I am
fairly sure that you can easily find that info online in a variety of
places.
so even if it is publicity, perhaps it is wrong to try to reason with
the unreasonable.
Brian white

Oz wrote in message ...
Brian White writes

The power head involved is half a meter. (You can use one meter
because you are a physisist).

And the throughput of driving water?

The power flow (for you) is 600 liters
per minute.

To what head?

And you get to use 6 inch diameter pipes in the
construction.

So?

You can obviously devine the best depths and heights for
pumping because you say they are completely researched.

Doubtless. However it's your job to search for the refs and quote them.

(By the way, pulser pumps are not very energy efficient. Ram pumps are
really energy efficient). (Just to clear that up for interested
partys).

Actually ram pumps are not at all efficient. They are used where
efficiency is not important but simplicity, cost and reliability is.

OK, so you can give input-output specs and so on. Selecting an
appropriate pump requires knowing input power (in this case presumably
water) and expected (preferably guaranteed) output at various heads.

Just saying this is a wonderful system, cuts no ice.

Still waiting for some basic data.

OK, post your I/O specs here then.

There is no point in me repeating it. I already know that it works.

What do you mean by 'works'?

Somebody said you are a physicist. Even there, experiment and
repeatability is the proof of the science. Is that not so?

Absolutely, let's see the specs.

Still waiting.

Brian White writes
http://nxtwave.tripod.com/gaiatech/pulser/index.htm

So why not just cut & paste an extract?
Eg

capacity.

WORKING MODEL Approx. Flow 260 liters per minute of water , head 0.5
m, going 2.5m deep and pulsing to 3.6 m gave 4 liters per minute. The
same setup gave 1.5 lpm at 5 meters high. This was with a split process
pump using 10 cm (4 inch) pipes for the stream water and using 19 mm
(3/4 in) for the pulsed water delivery. The efficiency decreases like
this as one pumps higher. On the other hand, 2 stages to 7 meters will
give about 2 liters per minute with the same setup. Going deeper also
increases the efficiency. Perhaps you have an abandoned well that you
can use?

So input power 260 x 0.5 x g/60 joules

Useful output 4 x 3.6 x g /60 joules

Efficiency 11%

At 5m lift it's 6%.

It's not rocket science.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

So, I guess this is a summary of the whole thread. Sometimes, you can
take a horse to a river but you cannot make him drink. Same with some
respondees to this thread! If you get into argueing about the
definition of work, then the arguement gets a bit pointless!
The basis of science is experiment. I have taken hundreds of
measurements of the pulser pumps shown on the videos and a few others.
I had hoped to interest a few people in making their own pumps and
reporting their results and their experiments using different heads
and flows. To help map the limits of the pump.
The hope is still there.
Take a look at the videos. Bear in mind that the pump shown uses a
really small flow of water falling a small distamce and clearly, it is
pumping a significant amount of water. Your water flow might be 10
times as much and your fall or power head might be a meter or more.
Imagine how much water would be moved then! And all without a moving
part to go wrong! And, remember, it isnt just a water pump!
Take care
Brian White

(Brian White) wrote in message . com...
My brother has just sent me short avi videos and pictures of a pulser
pump back in Ireland. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pulserpump/files/
They show the pumping of water clearly. Hopefully he will send me more
of it pumping quite a bit higher. (He just has to add a section of
pipe to the top of the 3/4 inch pipe to go higher). There are pictures
from him in the picture album section too.
Please note that this pump is powered by a tiny stream falling a small
distance, has no moving parts and can pump to over 7 meters high!
Imagine what a decent sized river could do!
http://nxtwave.tripod.com/gaiatech/pulser/index.htm
Brian White

Thank you, Gordon! You will get an honerable mention in the pulser
pump group!
I dont know if I reinvented anything yet. Regardless, I will attempt
to make it widely known.
The link looks like a source of valuable experimental info. Seems
like a different branch of 2 phase flow research to me. Nice to know
that Einstein saw the value of 2 phase flow. Hope others will follow
his lead.
Brian White
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3e50c04e_2@newsfeed...
On Albert Einstein has a patents on a small 15to 18 mm air lift pump. That
must have been in his early years before give up on hydrology as an
unsolvable problem and taking up physics. His son did take up hydrology and
did quite well at it working for the USDA.
http://www.me.gatech.edu/energy/andy_phd/one.htm

I think your claims of new and relativity are really you reinvented the
wheel again.

--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger