Re: OT: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
 

The physics is simple.

If the hose is of the proper diameter for the flow rate generated by
the pump, then the pressure at the pump will be about equal to the
vertical distance (the height) between the pump and the point where
the water becomes free-flowing, times a density value of about .45
PSI/ft (which is derived from the weight of a cubic foot of water
divided by 144 to convert from square feet to square inches). If you
are pumping the water to the top of the barrel and letting it fall,
then that would be the height difference between the pump and the top
of the barrel. If you are pumping the water into the bottom bung,
then you would use the height difference between the pump and the top
of the water in the barrel.

Therefore, the pump would encounter slightly less pressure if the tank
were filled through the bottom bung, at least until it became nearly
full. The difference is small enough that it would make only a small
change in the amount of time it would take to fill the tank.

The fact that there may be several hundred pounds of water in the
barrel is immaterial, since pressure is pounds per square inch. You
could calculate the pressure at the bottom of the barrel by dividing
the weight of the water in the barrel by the area of the barrel head
in square inches (assuming straight sides, for a wooden barrel you
would have to use an average diameter to get an exact figure).

Bartolomeo

Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
 

In article <pmq9q0l4sjckqakm5b9sma5mdlptajk6fp@4ax.com>,
Tom Quackenbush <tquackenbogusinfo@kingcon.com> wrote:

> Nope. When we speak of a column in this context, the column has the
> same area as the hose through which you're pumping fluid. If you
> wanted to know the pressure in pounds per square inch, you'd consider
> an imaginary coulumn with a cross-sectional area of 1 square inch.
>
> The volume of fluid outside the column doesn't matter.
>
> Consider this:
>
> If you submerge yourself one foot under water in your swimming pool,
> you're subject to the same pressure as if you were submerged one foot
> under water in Lake Superior, even though the volume of Lake Superior
> is a gazillion times larger than your swimming pool (gazillion being a
> highly technical term used for these sorts of comparisons).
>
> R,
> Tom Q..
>
O.K. I get it now. Thanks, I was having trouble with that. The "column"
is just a term for vertical distance, not shape. Makes mo-betta sense
now! A column, to me as an arteest, is a tall thin object -sometimes
convoluted in shape- which supports something. Not the same. Someone, Ed
I think, had stated that before, volume didn't matter. I had to go back
through the posts and reread them carefully, cause I wasn't
understanding, you helped with the big picture. Well, I lost the stoopid
argument, but I learned and will humbly accept my berating and move
forward. Thanks again.

--
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 =----

Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
 

In article <pmq9q0l4sjckqakm5b9sma5mdlptajk6fp@4ax.com>,
Tom Quackenbush <tquackenbogusinfo@kingcon.com> wrote:

> Nope. When we speak of a column in this context, the column has the
> same area as the hose through which you're pumping fluid. If you
> wanted to know the pressure in pounds per square inch, you'd consider
> an imaginary coulumn with a cross-sectional area of 1 square inch.
>
> The volume of fluid outside the column doesn't matter.
>
> Consider this:
>
> If you submerge yourself one foot under water in your swimming pool,
> you're subject to the same pressure as if you were submerged one foot
> under water in Lake Superior, even though the volume of Lake Superior
> is a gazillion times larger than your swimming pool (gazillion being a
> highly technical term used for these sorts of comparisons).
>
> R,
> Tom Q..
>
O.K. I get it now. Thanks, I was having trouble with that. The "column"
is just a term for vertical distance, not shape. Makes mo-betta sense
now! A column, to me as an arteest, is a tall thin object -sometimes
convoluted in shape- which supports something. Not the same. Someone, Ed
I think, had stated that before, volume didn't matter. I had to go back
through the posts and reread them carefully, cause I wasn't
understanding, you helped with the big picture. Well, I lost the stoopid
argument, but I learned and will humbly accept my berating and move
forward. Thanks again.

--
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 =----

Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
 

In article <pmq9q0l4sjckqakm5b9sma5mdlptajk6fp@4ax.com>,
Tom Quackenbush <tquackenbogusinfo@kingcon.com> wrote:

> Nope. When we speak of a column in this context, the column has the
> same area as the hose through which you're pumping fluid. If you
> wanted to know the pressure in pounds per square inch, you'd consider
> an imaginary coulumn with a cross-sectional area of 1 square inch.
>
> The volume of fluid outside the column doesn't matter.
>
> Consider this:
>
> If you submerge yourself one foot under water in your swimming pool,
> you're subject to the same pressure as if you were submerged one foot
> under water in Lake Superior, even though the volume of Lake Superior
> is a gazillion times larger than your swimming pool (gazillion being a
> highly technical term used for these sorts of comparisons).
>
> R,
> Tom Q..
>
O.K. I get it now. Thanks, I was having trouble with that. The "column"
is just a term for vertical distance, not shape. Makes mo-betta sense
now! A column, to me as an arteest, is a tall thin object -sometimes
convoluted in shape- which supports something. Not the same. Someone, Ed
I think, had stated that before, volume didn't matter. I had to go back
through the posts and reread them carefully, cause I wasn't
understanding, you helped with the big picture. Well, I lost the stoopid
argument, but I learned and will humbly accept my berating and move
forward. Thanks again.

--
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 =----

Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
 

> Nope. When we speak of a column in this context, the column has the
> same area as the hose through which you're pumping fluid. If you
> wanted to know the pressure in pounds per square inch, you'd consider
> an imaginary coulumn with a cross-sectional area of 1 square inch.

Shouldn't it be the area of whatever piston, diaphram, or whatever
you're moving the water with, in the pump? The hose is just
a weirdly shaped part of the reservior you're pumping water into.

--Goedjn

Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
 

> Nope. When we speak of a column in this context, the column has the
> same area as the hose through which you're pumping fluid. If you
> wanted to know the pressure in pounds per square inch, you'd consider
> an imaginary coulumn with a cross-sectional area of 1 square inch.

Shouldn't it be the area of whatever piston, diaphram, or whatever
you're moving the water with, in the pump? The hose is just
a weirdly shaped part of the reservior you're pumping water into.

--Goedjn

Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
 

> Nope. When we speak of a column in this context, the column has the
> same area as the hose through which you're pumping fluid. If you
> wanted to know the pressure in pounds per square inch, you'd consider
> an imaginary coulumn with a cross-sectional area of 1 square inch.

Shouldn't it be the area of whatever piston, diaphram, or whatever
you're moving the water with, in the pump? The hose is just
a weirdly shaped part of the reservior you're pumping water into.

--Goedjn

Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
 

Jeepers wrote:
>
> In article <pmq9q0l4sjckqakm5b9sma5mdlptajk6fp@4ax.com>,
> Tom Quackenbush <tquackenbogusinfo@kingcon.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope. When we speak of a column in this context, the column has the
> > same area as the hose through which you're pumping fluid. If you
> > wanted to know the pressure in pounds per square inch, you'd consider
> > an imaginary coulumn with a cross-sectional area of 1 square inch.
> >
> > The volume of fluid outside the column doesn't matter.
> >
> > Consider this:
> >
> > If you submerge yourself one foot under water in your swimming pool,
> > you're subject to the same pressure as if you were submerged one foot
> > under water in Lake Superior, even though the volume of Lake Superior
> > is a gazillion times larger than your swimming pool (gazillion being a
> > highly technical term used for these sorts of comparisons).
> >
> > R,
> > Tom Q..
> >
> O.K. I get it now. Thanks, I was having trouble with that. The "column"
> is just a term for vertical distance, not shape. Makes mo-betta sense
> now! A column, to me as an arteest, is a tall thin object -sometimes
> convoluted in shape- which supports something. Not the same. Someone, Ed
> I think, had stated that before, volume didn't matter. I had to go back
> through the posts and reread them carefully, cause I wasn't
> understanding, you helped with the big picture. Well, I lost the stoopid
> argument, but I learned and will humbly accept my berating and move
> forward. Thanks again.
>
> --

I had to read carefully too, but remembered the column is the smallest
part all the way along, finally....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
 

Jeepers wrote:
>
> In article <pmq9q0l4sjckqakm5b9sma5mdlptajk6fp@4ax.com>,
> Tom Quackenbush <tquackenbogusinfo@kingcon.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope. When we speak of a column in this context, the column has the
> > same area as the hose through which you're pumping fluid. If you
> > wanted to know the pressure in pounds per square inch, you'd consider
> > an imaginary coulumn with a cross-sectional area of 1 square inch.
> >
> > The volume of fluid outside the column doesn't matter.
> >
> > Consider this:
> >
> > If you submerge yourself one foot under water in your swimming pool,
> > you're subject to the same pressure as if you were submerged one foot
> > under water in Lake Superior, even though the volume of Lake Superior
> > is a gazillion times larger than your swimming pool (gazillion being a
> > highly technical term used for these sorts of comparisons).
> >
> > R,
> > Tom Q..
> >
> O.K. I get it now. Thanks, I was having trouble with that. The "column"
> is just a term for vertical distance, not shape. Makes mo-betta sense
> now! A column, to me as an arteest, is a tall thin object -sometimes
> convoluted in shape- which supports something. Not the same. Someone, Ed
> I think, had stated that before, volume didn't matter. I had to go back
> through the posts and reread them carefully, cause I wasn't
> understanding, you helped with the big picture. Well, I lost the stoopid
> argument, but I learned and will humbly accept my berating and move
> forward. Thanks again.
>
> --

I had to read carefully too, but remembered the column is the smallest
part all the way along, finally....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Re: Physics/hydraulics of water and barrel
 

Jeepers wrote:
>
> In article <pmq9q0l4sjckqakm5b9sma5mdlptajk6fp@4ax.com>,
> Tom Quackenbush <tquackenbogusinfo@kingcon.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope. When we speak of a column in this context, the column has the
> > same area as the hose through which you're pumping fluid. If you
> > wanted to know the pressure in pounds per square inch, you'd consider
> > an imaginary coulumn with a cross-sectional area of 1 square inch.
> >
> > The volume of fluid outside the column doesn't matter.
> >
> > Consider this:
> >
> > If you submerge yourself one foot under water in your swimming pool,
> > you're subject to the same pressure as if you were submerged one foot
> > under water in Lake Superior, even though the volume of Lake Superior
> > is a gazillion times larger than your swimming pool (gazillion being a
> > highly technical term used for these sorts of comparisons).
> >
> > R,
> > Tom Q..
> >
> O.K. I get it now. Thanks, I was having trouble with that. The "column"
> is just a term for vertical distance, not shape. Makes mo-betta sense
> now! A column, to me as an arteest, is a tall thin object -sometimes
> convoluted in shape- which supports something. Not the same. Someone, Ed
> I think, had stated that before, volume didn't matter. I had to go back
> through the posts and reread them carefully, cause I wasn't
> understanding, you helped with the big picture. Well, I lost the stoopid
> argument, but I learned and will humbly accept my berating and move
> forward. Thanks again.
>
> --

I had to read carefully too, but remembered the column is the smallest
part all the way along, finally....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's