Talk:Centrifugal pump

message: The statement "Centrifugal pumps are used for large discharge through smaller heads" is an over-generalization - what consists of a smaller head?  I design systems at power generation facilities that use centrifugal pumps to pump slurry up over 150 feet of head through 56"+ lines at over 1,000 GPM!  The applicability of centrifugal pumps are a factor of numerous considerations - not just the amount of head.   Nick (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-Generalization/Non-specific

message: What about Radial flow and Mixed flow pumps. There is come confusion as to what a centrifugal pump is. This article only deals with the Radial flow type of centrifugal pumps. Most literature I have seen also defines axial and mixed flow pumps as centrifugal pumps. --GILDog (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Radial/Axial/Mixed Flow

message: A generic centrifugal pump curve would be very useful in explaining the design and operation of this type of pump. I have some curves that plot head vs. capacity with parameters of impeller diameter and/or pump speed. Unfortunately, they all have manufacturers' logos, so I believe they are unacceptable per Wikipedia rules. Can another reader supply a suitable curve?ChemE50 (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Centrifugal Pump Curve Needed

message: This article references an image showing a cutaway of a single stage centrifugal pump:
:File:CetriFugal_Pump.jpg
Several other Wikipedia language pages use this image.
It is a great image, except that the impeller vanes are the wrong direction with respect to the outlet.  I made a corrected albeit imperfect version using Paint.Net and uploaded it here:
:File:Centrifugal_Pump-mod.jpg
You can see other images showing the correct impeller vane direction here:
:File:Centrifugal_Pump.png
and here
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/632655/7035/Volute-centrifugal-pump
The other way to know which way the impeller vanes should be orientated with respect to the outlet is to recognize that the impeller 'flings' the liquid away to the outlet.  It does not 'cup' the liquid.
Kaze0010 (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i can assure everyone the the direction the rotor vanes point in the cut-away is correct. anyone who says otherwise does not understand and should contact me immediately. looking into the inlet of the pump impeller and looking downstream the rotation of the rotor is correctly counter clock wise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkoronowski (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pump impeller blades can be curved either way. The image should not have been changed and I will attempt to change it back to the original one supplied. All images should not demonstrate their impellers as reverse curved when this usage would typically use a forward curved bladed impeller. The originl image was more correct. Here is some docs from a major manufacturer on this. See section 4.3.   http://dk.grundfos.com/content/dam/Global%20Site/Industries%20%26%20solutions/Industry/pdf/The_Centrifugal_Pump.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect impeller vane direction in cutaway image

message: In Problems of centrifugal pumps I think the surge link going through to Jerk (physics) is incorect - its more a problem with water hammer or having a slug of water run backwards and stall the pump or even run it against its prime mover - having said that its a long time since I worked at BHR Group  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjwalshe (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorect link in problems

message: This article has been reverted by a bot to  as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: This article has been reverted by a bot to  as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: This is a page about a type of pump, nobody here wants to be drawn into a non-existent controversy about the meaning of 'centrifugal force'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the "how it works" section was vacuous, and it seemed like writing from sources would make sense.  The sources, as you know, are largely mixed up about how to do this, so I thought it best to point that out, too.  Modern sources haven't gotten much better; have you been able to find one that describes sensibly how these things work?  They mostly mention centrifugal force, without explaining what they mean by it.  What would you suggest?   Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that there must be a good modern description of how a cp works somewhere.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

text: In general, I resist the inclusion of purported controversies and such into WP – unless there's a reliable source for the controversy.  Here we have many such.  This field is very screwed up, and physicists and engineers know that, so they complain about it.  One can't really understand the literature without understanding the objections to it.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no controversy any more than there is a controversy over the spelling of the word 'centrifugal'.  Look at these refs, , ,.  There are plenty more.  Do we now suppose that there is a school of thought that the word should be spelled 'centrifugle' and that we should give equal weight to that POV? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So you weren't able to find any books that explain it sensibly?  Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick - what are you doing? 

message: The direction of the impeller vanes are correct!
Looking downstream into the impeller the direction of rotation is correctly counterclockwise.
If you have any questions please contact me, Mkoronowski (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The second figure, cutaway view of a centrifugal pump 

message: The back sweep of these blades is consistent with the clockwise rotation.
However, this figure has to very severe mistakes.
The velocity diagram shown with green red and blue vectors are obviously intended to be absolute velocity vectors and not relative velocity vectors. The reason I say this is that the length of the green vector represents the relative tangential slip velocity. It is too long by any stretch of the imagination. Further the relative frame of reference vectors are only used by fluid dynamics designers to shape the pump impeller blade.
The second error is to refer to the blades back sweep as directly pushing the water outward. This is all part of some layman's mumbo-jumbo. This figure should be corrected or removed.
Mkoronowski (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next picture, a centrifugal pump uses a spinning impeller which normally has backward swept blades… 

message: Here all the external links are directed to Christopher Earls Brennen's books in http://authors.library.caltech.edu website. It is not very eye soothing. Can anyone provide single webpage link, where all these books are enlisted? --Freemesm (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link

message: Here it is the pump which we are having commomly in industry and houses.it is called centrifugal pump.
most commonly it is connect with the extra motor or extra roatatindg devices.(Chain draive, belt drive).
It will dischrage the liquid under 5bar presure.
it is costly device.£  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.15.249.157 (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  centrifugul pump 

message: Take a look the method to establish the head pressure of the impeller:
1-	Calculate the power consumption on the shaft by the torque that was created by the interaction force between the impeller  vanes and the liquid going through it.
2-	Applying energy save Neuton's law.
3-	The head pressure of the output streamlines will equal the the power consumption on the shaft.
To analyse the previous method let’s look at Fig 2.1  
1-	The circumferential  force F that impeller vanes affect on tiny  mass  m equal the anti-force F’ that m affect on the impeller vanes. That force created the torque on the rotary shaft.
2-	The centrifugal force Fc is internal forces created by centrifugal acceleration, it appear inside m. This force have not relationship to the torque on the rotary shaft. Moreover Sir Euler never mentioned or recognized about this force,include the centrifugal acceleration that was the original can cause centrifugal force.
Follow this problem and solution it is easy to see centrifugal force Fc was outside the calculation. So that such method and such calculations are clearly serious shortcomings and serious mistake also.Nguyen thanh chinh (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: arguments prove Euler’s pump equation is not right

message: Of course energy to create the centrifugal acceleration can not get from anywhere outside the rotary shaft. But applying conservation of momentum can not solve this problem.
In the new method, no need to mention about the energy supply by the rotary shaft but still can directly determine the energy of the output streamlines as:
1-	Learning the nature of movement of mass m and found that it’s movement combination by 2 direction movement  :Absolute velocity follow tangential direction and Centrifugal direction movement.
2-	Not complicated to determine the value of variables : the absolute velocity of mass m and centrifugal acceleration affect on mass m
3-	Quite easy to calculate the dynamic pressure and static pressure of the streamlines that going through the impeller.
I think with knowledge of classical mechanics inadequate level many people still can review and evaluation of this new approach. Because it was not  quote from any source.
Nguyen thanh chinh (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide a good source, in whatever language, that makes your point, we can probably use it to amend what the article says.  Without a source, it would be pointless to try to interpret your objection and suggestion.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I had another look yesterday, and tried to remove the new description stuff, but gave up because I couldn't find a workable version to revert to. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Please stop making these changes. Several people have objected to them, you clearly do not have a consensus for them, as required by WP:CON. They are written in extremely bad and hard to follow English, and are completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If you can provide sources for your changes I'd be willing to help you clean up the English, but that needs to happen in an online draft, not in the article itself. In the meantime nearly all the material here needs to be deleted. If these are your own theories, they fall under WP:OR and should not be included at all. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New method to establish the head pressure add by the impeller

message: This article  describes a turbine pump as a centrifugal pump.  I think it is an Axial-flow pump. What do others think? Biscuittin (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turbine pump 

message: The advertisement of centrifugal pumps seems to be nearly universal in claiming that they are self-priming, but none (to my admittedly limited understanding) are truly so. Would it be best to modify the segment of this article dealing with such pumps by noting that these are not truly self priming?
This arises from a recent issue that I ran into where I assumed that a cheap pump that I purchased was truly self priming. After trying to find one that actually was, it turns out that the term self priming seems to be used widely for pumps where that is not the case. The wording of this article seems to continue that practice, which is inaccurate.
A self priming pump that requires the introduction of material outside of its normal operating environment (a submerged pump is obviously self priming as it is naturally submerged in fluid), is not a self priming pump. Sfer144 (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-priming