Talk:Hydraulic ram

message: See Talk:Jaws of Life.
I have added a lot of links and improved the structure of this article, but there is still more to be done:
* Can someone get the image working (I've had a couple of attempts, but don't really understand how they work yet).
* The operating sequence could do with reformating also, as its not easy to follow at the moment. I expect that getting the image working will aid in this.
Chris
Thryduulf 00:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 64.136.49.228 screwed the page up, it's OK again now 213.51.209.230 20:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I think the diagram is correct. All the descriptions I have read say that the water goes through the check valve and then in to the pressure vessel. If it were the other way round, then the check valve would not stop the pressure vessel from blowing water back to where it came from. --Heron 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

message: I dunno what to do about this, but the page at http://www.meribah-ram-pump.com/principles.aspx?mn=2&sm=2-0 seems to copy parts of this page word for word.  Is there a possible copyright issue about them copying wikipedia or wikipedia copying them?
71.227.195.32 (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the text in the article evolved more or less gradually, and the part in question was in the current form by about Aug. 2008.  The Meribah page has a diagram and the text pretty well matching, and a copyright data of 2008.  It sure looks like Meribah copied WP.  I've asked the user who uploaded the image, just to be sure, but it looks pretty clear.  There's an example of a letter to send to them at Wikipedia:Standard_GFDL_violation_letter.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the author of an older version of the file (now deleted for some reason, I think only administrators can see it). That version was wrong as far as the diagram is concerned, so Sonett72 edited it and the result is what you can see today. However, I have certainly created the original version from scratch, and I am almost positive Sonett subsequently edited my version because they look virtually identical as far as the presentation goes. So, in short, Wikipedia has certainly originated the diagram in that article you're talking about. --Gutza T T+ 14:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--that makes it pretty clear cut.  Now does someone want to send that letter?Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: :::::: As the note currently stands, it's a one-liner with two relevant and useful wls and one unhelpful reference (paid site). It's enough to WP:V it by reading the abstract, but would fail WP:EL as the accessible unpaid content isn't sufficient explanation. This seems like a reasonable compromise between mentioning this relationship (which is after all interesting, just a bit of a niche interest that's irrelevant to most readers) and bloating the article with an WP:UNDUE section. 
:::::: If it's possible to do so, I'd like to see this section expanded to describe just what design improvement was made to the ram as a result of this. This is claimed to be the justification for this analogy being in the ram article, yet the benefit gained was unclear.
:::::: It might (copyright permitting) be possible to use the ref to write a section in detail, explaining the correspondences in detail and showing how the technique was aapplied to the ram's benefit. That would belong in the analogy article, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, let's be careful about what's in the WP guidelines--WP:V does not require that content be accessible at no charge.  See Wikipedia:V#Access_to_sources.  And the comment about failing WP:EL isn't relevant: as stated in the lead of WP:EL, "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources."  Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You misunderstand me: It works for WP:V because the abstract alone would support this, without requiring access to the paid content. However it wouldn't be acceptable as a WP:EL, as the useful part of it to that level isn't accessible. As it's used here, it's fine. As a larger section (which would be WP:UNDUE here), it might become problematic. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did misunderstand part of what you said.  I apologize.  I see that we agree that WP:EL is irrelevant.  We also agree that it works for WP:V.  However, it is wrong to assert that that is only because the abstract is sufficient.  WP:V does not require that we rely only on free web content.   This is quite explicit in Wikipedia:V#Access_to_sources.  A larger section would probably be undue here, but there would be nothing wrong with the use of paid content to support either a larger section or the brief mention.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  " it is wrong to assert that that is only because the abstract is sufficient. "  Fortunately I claimed no such thing. "the abstract alone would support this" means that it's acceptable as the abstract is there, it doesn't mean that it couldn't be acceptable for other reasons too (paid content being acceptable to WP:V anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tangent on acceptability of paid content as reliable sources

message: more information :
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=1&size=1&id=pt.1775.x.x.65.x.277
HH 62.153.13.108 (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulsation engine 

message: Hello,
Just read your article on Hydraulic Rams and in particular the outlined history.
We feel that the history provided in the Wikipedia would not be complete without listing our Billabong Hydraulic Water Rams (BBHWRs) there.
For your information the BBHWRs have been introduced to the Australian and Pacific Region markets by Messrs. John Danks and Son in 1855. We have on record various Testimonials from BBHWRs users, each confirming that they have been using the BBHWRs for various periods of time between 50 - 100 years. We have a  testimonial on record, where in one case a 3rd generation farmer in Queensland has confirmed that his family has been using the BBHWRs for over 100 years!
Our company has been manufacturing the BVBHWRs for the last 28 years, after we have purchased the BBHWRs business from Messrs. John Danks and Son Pty. Ltd. in 1986.  Our BBHWRs are operating, apart from Australia also extensively in the Pacific Region - i.e. PNG, Solomon Islands, Fiji, New Hebridies, Philippines etc. 
Would you be so kind and provide us with your email address, where we will be able to send you a more detailed BBHWRs documentation?
The purpose of this communication is that we wish to request Wikipedia, that your Rams History Section will be updated by also listing the Billabong Hydraulic Water Rams in there. 
Kind regards,
Manfred
Misal Technologies Pty. Ltd.
Manfred Mayboehm M.Sc. (Elec.) CP. Eng.. M.I.E. Aust.
Managing Director
______________
Ph:   61 3 9876 5222
Fax: 61 3 9876 5333
Email: misaltech@bigpond.com
Postal Address:
P.O.Box 510 
Ringwood VIC. 3134
Australia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misaltech (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  HYDRAULIC RAM ARTICLE 

message: Brief nod here to Tom Godwin's story "Mother of Invention". Astounding 1953, anthologised in Spectrum 5. MarkMLl (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentions in literature- SF and other 

message: Is all the text about the Papa pump really relevant? Seems more like an advertisement to me. --5.146.48.149 (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papa pump 

message: Hi, i've added mention of Priestly's Hydraulic Ram, a new article which I started up, into this article.  It is a different kind of thing, involving water mixed with air dropping into a sealed reservoir.  User:MB seems to understand it a bit better than me, and has much further developed the Priestly's Hydraulic Ram article.  Anyhow, this device has no moving parts, and is not a "cyclic pump" with moving parts.  This article from its origin has always defined a hydraulic ram to involve a cyclic pump.
Hey, i am not sure how this should be handled here.  It's a matter of definition of what is a hydraulic ram fundamentally.  If Priestly's version, and some similar others now referenced in its article, are not what this article wants to call a hydraulic ram, then they still should be mentioned at least in a "see also" type way.  However it seems reasonable to consider these to be hydraulic rams, I think, because they involve using high water pressure to force water up .... isn't that "hydraulic" and isn't that "ramming"?
Pinging several past editors here:   Hey y'all did good work here in the past!  I hope you can help absorb this complication! cheers, --Doncram (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the same as a trompe?  It could be linked to that article as an instance.  I've not read much about trompes so I dont know if they are routinely described as "hydraulic rams". --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: trompe-ish, in part.  I still don't see how it works, the Priestly article needs a diagram! --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  covering Priestly's hydraulic ram, which is different than "standard" hydraulic ram described to date 

message: From the description, the Priestly pump sounds much closer to a Pulser pump than the "hydralic ram".  That is, it uses a Trompe to power an Airlift pump.   I'm not a civil engineer, so I only added a note saying that it might be different.  I'll leave it to an expert to finish the change.
I agreed with 5.146.48.149 that the reference to the Papa Pump felt like adspeak.  I kept the parts I thought were relevant: the patent citation, the mention of venturi effect, and the image showing the valve arrangement.
Mdnahas (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priestly and Papa 

message: My edit was reverted by Kernow1964, with minimal comments.  The same account reverted a previous attempt to delete mention of the "Papa Pump".  
Kernow1964 uploaded the image of the internals of the Papa Pump and claimed it was their own work.  The account has no description on Wikipedia.  A websearch says that that username may be connected to the email address ian.lamble@btinternet.com.  Kernow appears to be the Cornish word for Cornwall.  The Papa Pump is produced by Water Powered Technologies, a company headquartered in Cornwall.  While not conclusive, this feels suspicious.
If you are Kernow1964, please say if you have any connection to the Papa Pump and please explain the reversion. 
Mdnahas (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicous Reversion 

message: The speed of sound in water is not relevant.  The speed of a water hammer pulse depends on the characteristics of the pipe.  As the pulse travels along, the pipe expands, then contracts.  Look up formulas for water hammer propagation speed.  In addition, the water hammer understanding makes it clear why the supply pipe must be uniform and smooth with no sharp bends or restrictions.  If you use a long PVC pipe, you can actually see the pluse move up the pipe, (much slower in PVC than in steel).  And then you see it move back down.  The reopen does not occur until it arrives.  In steel pipes, as Clemson research shows there may be multiple reflections up and down the pipe until the pulse goes negative enough (vacuum) the open valve.  I believe this understanding is important so that the reason for the requirements on the supply pipe make sense. 
I will try to find the relevant Clemson U. Documents and repair the links. Meanwhile, please read some sources on water hammer in pipes before you come to an alternate conclusion.  Thanks. 
JNRSTANLEY (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments on my reversion to the explanation of how the vacuum pulse develops

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Impulse pump and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 13#Impulse pump until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 08:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Impulse pump" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]