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

My brother has sent me 2 more video clips (avi format) which show the
pump in action a little better. You can download them at the link
below (avi format which windows computers play).
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pulserpump/files/
By the way, Gordon Cougar, lots of people round the world have lots of
water flowing by every day. And they cannot use the waterpower because
it isnt falling at least 2 meters or because it costs an arm and a leg
to devellop their hydropower site. Another small point that you
completely miss is that you cannot pump ALL the water in any stream.
It is illegal.
Another small point is that the pulser pump is more than a water pump.
Efficiency means what exactly? If it costs 3 or 4 hundred dollars to
devellop an unused hydropower resource, and it pumps water for free
for the next 15 years, maybe it is efficient. Perhaps there are carbon
credits for all the coal or oil that you are saving too. Financial
efficiency is the only efficiency that counts for making devellopment
decisions.
Imagine if you will, an electical pump pumping water from the same
stream. It is driven by a huge power plant many miles away. and it
only uses 15% or less of the energy from the burning coal or oil to
pump water! (The power plant itself is less than 40% efficient and
that 40% very quickly dwindles before it gets to your pump).

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3e33a6f4_2@newsfeed...
"Brian White" wrote in message
om...
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

It is also one of the most inefficient pumps in the world. If you have lots
of water going by and you need a little it works.

Sorry Gordon. I guess I am too defensive! In the past, I have had guys
saying that it is no better than the mist off the half meter waterfall
and it stings! The thing works and nobody has yet put it to scientific
test. All the money that is spent on helping 3rd world countrys, and
yet this thing (that can really really help) is ignored! I find it
astounding. Until I get feedback from others that have tried it, I
have to defend it from all the negative vibes. They really have a
detrimental effect. Anyway, when I lived in ireland, where water is
plentiful, I used one of the pumps to pump just 6 ft higher to
irrigate plants nearby. The fine sediment in streams seems to seal
them a bit so that even plants nearby can need water and not be able
to get the optimum amount. They are a device for using low grade water
power really. They can be used for other things besides pumping water.
Anyway, sorry for being so jumpy
Brian
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:3e40ddf3$1_2@newsfeed...
If you have lots of water it's great. I wasn't running it down I was making
an observation.

I would love to be in a place where water was plentiful and not have to
spend from $300 to $1,000 and acre to put in irrigation. I look at water
from the point of what it cost to pump because I live on a dry plain and
have to pump it from 30 to 300 feet.

Gordon

Brian White writes
Sorry Gordon. I guess I am too defensive! In the past, I have had guys
saying that it is no better than the mist off the half meter waterfall
and it stings! The thing works and nobody has yet put it to scientific
test.

Eh?

You are talking about a hammer pump?
They are common, well known, and well scientifically described.
There are even web pages on it and a long discussion here about them
some years ago.

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

Dear OZ, Please look at the pulser pump yahoo group or one of the
pulser pump websites or the animated software company's "internet
glossary of pumps".
After that, It might finally be clear to you. IT ISNT A HAMMER PUMP.
It works in a COMPLETELY different way.
It ISNT yet common, well known or well scientifically described.
Brian White
Oz wrote in message ...
Brian White writes
Sorry Gordon. I guess I am too defensive! In the past, I have had guys
saying that it is no better than the mist off the half meter waterfall
and it stings! The thing works and nobody has yet put it to scientific
test.

Eh?

You are talking about a hammer pump?
They are common, well known, and well scientifically described.
There are even web pages on it and a long discussion here about them
some years ago.

Brian White writes
Dear OZ, Please look at the pulser pump yahoo group or one of the
pulser pump websites or the animated software company's "internet
glossary of pumps".
After that, It might finally be clear to you. IT ISNT A HAMMER PUMP.
It works in a COMPLETELY different way.

Tell us then.
I can't be bothered to look up sites when I don;t need a pump anyway.

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

Gordon Couger writes

It's an air lift pump.

Oh, right.

Also well described scientifically, although best used for difficult
liquids as it's horribly inefficient.

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

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger writes

It's an air lift pump.

Oh, right.

Also well described scientifically, although best used for difficult
liquids as it's horribly inefficient.

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


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.

If you get the water lifted that you require why does it matter if the
pump harvests only a small part of the energy in the head as the
inefficiency isn't costing you input energy?

What type of pump that needs no external energy source is efficient by
your standards?

David

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'.

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

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'.

"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.


I don't know the proportion but I will take your word for it that it is
small.

Whether that matters or not depends on the situation.


That is what I was saying. If you get what you want for no input energy
cost it matters not if the system is only low efficiency. You are
harvesting a small proportion of what cost you nothing, that's still
cheap.

I come back to my previous point. What type of pump that needs no
external energy source is efficient by
your standards?

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


So what? Do they work? Are they cheap? Are they suitable for some
situations? Whether those who are publishing this stuff now are right
about the origins of such ideas has nothing to do with the usefullness
of what they are publishing.

David

"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

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.

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

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.