OT: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
#181
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
Jeepers wrote:
> 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.
> Which, if any, fill location would require more or less force to fill
> this barrel: the top hole or the bottom hole?
The top would require a tiny bit more because it has to go over the rim
and down. Not enough difference to notice.
I'd recommend the top just in case the hose came out. Less water to get
hit with.
> 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.
> Which, if any, fill location would require more or less force to fill
> this barrel: the top hole or the bottom hole?
The top would require a tiny bit more because it has to go over the rim
and down. Not enough difference to notice.
I'd recommend the top just in case the hose came out. Less water to get
hit with.
#182
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
default@uri.edu wrote:
> Well, not quite. Moving the LAST slug of water requires the same amount
> of energy, but until the barrel is full, the water-column to the top bung
> is higher than the water colum to the botom bung and up the inside of the
> barrel. so the total energy used is LOWER if you pump through the botom
> hole.
DUH! (slaps head)
You're right.
> Well, not quite. Moving the LAST slug of water requires the same amount
> of energy, but until the barrel is full, the water-column to the top bung
> is higher than the water colum to the botom bung and up the inside of the
> barrel. so the total energy used is LOWER if you pump through the botom
> hole.
DUH! (slaps head)
You're right.
#183
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
default@uri.edu wrote:
> Well, not quite. Moving the LAST slug of water requires the same amount
> of energy, but until the barrel is full, the water-column to the top bung
> is higher than the water colum to the botom bung and up the inside of the
> barrel. so the total energy used is LOWER if you pump through the botom
> hole.
DUH! (slaps head)
You're right.
> Well, not quite. Moving the LAST slug of water requires the same amount
> of energy, but until the barrel is full, the water-column to the top bung
> is higher than the water colum to the botom bung and up the inside of the
> barrel. so the total energy used is LOWER if you pump through the botom
> hole.
DUH! (slaps head)
You're right.
#184
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
default@uri.edu wrote:
> Well, not quite. Moving the LAST slug of water requires the same amount
> of energy, but until the barrel is full, the water-column to the top bung
> is higher than the water colum to the botom bung and up the inside of the
> barrel. so the total energy used is LOWER if you pump through the botom
> hole.
DUH! (slaps head)
You're right.
> Well, not quite. Moving the LAST slug of water requires the same amount
> of energy, but until the barrel is full, the water-column to the top bung
> is higher than the water colum to the botom bung and up the inside of the
> barrel. so the total energy used is LOWER if you pump through the botom
> hole.
DUH! (slaps head)
You're right.
#185
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
Aircraft are refuelled from below, correct? Father-in-law (ex-RAF) says it
it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
Bob (long time lurker)
"Offbreed" <Offbreed_106@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cMGdnagPi7mC1DvcRVn-pQ@scnresearch.com...
> Jeepers wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>> Which, if any, fill location would require more or less force to fill
>> this barrel: the top hole or the bottom hole?
>
> The top would require a tiny bit more because it has to go over the rim
> and down. Not enough difference to notice.
>
> I'd recommend the top just in case the hose came out. Less water to get
> hit with.
it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
Bob (long time lurker)
"Offbreed" <Offbreed_106@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cMGdnagPi7mC1DvcRVn-pQ@scnresearch.com...
> Jeepers wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>> Which, if any, fill location would require more or less force to fill
>> this barrel: the top hole or the bottom hole?
>
> The top would require a tiny bit more because it has to go over the rim
> and down. Not enough difference to notice.
>
> I'd recommend the top just in case the hose came out. Less water to get
> hit with.
#186
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
Aircraft are refuelled from below, correct? Father-in-law (ex-RAF) says it
it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
Bob (long time lurker)
"Offbreed" <Offbreed_106@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cMGdnagPi7mC1DvcRVn-pQ@scnresearch.com...
> Jeepers wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>> Which, if any, fill location would require more or less force to fill
>> this barrel: the top hole or the bottom hole?
>
> The top would require a tiny bit more because it has to go over the rim
> and down. Not enough difference to notice.
>
> I'd recommend the top just in case the hose came out. Less water to get
> hit with.
it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
Bob (long time lurker)
"Offbreed" <Offbreed_106@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cMGdnagPi7mC1DvcRVn-pQ@scnresearch.com...
> Jeepers wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>> Which, if any, fill location would require more or less force to fill
>> this barrel: the top hole or the bottom hole?
>
> The top would require a tiny bit more because it has to go over the rim
> and down. Not enough difference to notice.
>
> I'd recommend the top just in case the hose came out. Less water to get
> hit with.
#187
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
Aircraft are refuelled from below, correct? Father-in-law (ex-RAF) says it
it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
Bob (long time lurker)
"Offbreed" <Offbreed_106@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cMGdnagPi7mC1DvcRVn-pQ@scnresearch.com...
> Jeepers wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>> Which, if any, fill location would require more or less force to fill
>> this barrel: the top hole or the bottom hole?
>
> The top would require a tiny bit more because it has to go over the rim
> and down. Not enough difference to notice.
>
> I'd recommend the top just in case the hose came out. Less water to get
> hit with.
it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
Bob (long time lurker)
"Offbreed" <Offbreed_106@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cMGdnagPi7mC1DvcRVn-pQ@scnresearch.com...
> Jeepers wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>> Which, if any, fill location would require more or less force to fill
>> this barrel: the top hole or the bottom hole?
>
> The top would require a tiny bit more because it has to go over the rim
> and down. Not enough difference to notice.
>
> I'd recommend the top just in case the hose came out. Less water to get
> hit with.
#188
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/kc-10/kc-10-05.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Robert Francis wrote:
>
> Aircraft are refuelled from below, correct? Father-in-law (ex-RAF) says it
> it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
> people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
> Bob (long time lurker)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Robert Francis wrote:
>
> Aircraft are refuelled from below, correct? Father-in-law (ex-RAF) says it
> it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
> people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
> Bob (long time lurker)
#189
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/kc-10/kc-10-05.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Robert Francis wrote:
>
> Aircraft are refuelled from below, correct? Father-in-law (ex-RAF) says it
> it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
> people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
> Bob (long time lurker)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Robert Francis wrote:
>
> Aircraft are refuelled from below, correct? Father-in-law (ex-RAF) says it
> it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
> people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
> Bob (long time lurker)
#190
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/kc-10/kc-10-05.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Robert Francis wrote:
>
> Aircraft are refuelled from below, correct? Father-in-law (ex-RAF) says it
> it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
> people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
> Bob (long time lurker)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Robert Francis wrote:
>
> Aircraft are refuelled from below, correct? Father-in-law (ex-RAF) says it
> it's primarily for pump efficiency but has the added benefit of keeping
> people off the wing and possibly stepping where they shouldn't.
> Bob (long time lurker)