Fill washer then add laundry????

[Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.]

Choreboy <choreREMOVEboy@localnet.com> verbositized:

>But you said,
>"However, using a LONG tube as the restrictor (instead of plate) brings
>line resistance into the equasion. Which helps balance the water flow
>more accurately against fluctuating line pressures."
>
>Doesn't that mean if I used narrow pipes my shower will stay about the
>same when somebody flushes?

Well, if the 1/2 inch pipe was long enough that the internal
resistance would overcome the fluctuating pressure to enough of a
percentage of difference, it could work.

>
>Flame war!

Not at all!

I've seen many homes where the cold water supply was very short (low
resistance) and the hot water supply was very long (higher resistance)
and even some where all the cold water was in 3/4 inch and the hot in
1/2 inch tubing.

If the length of the cold water tube to the shower is the same length
as the cold water tube to the hot water heater and the hot water tube
to the shower, you should never notice that someone flushed a toilet.

The problem that causes this most often is the cold water tube is
tapped ahead of the shower to feed the toilet. In other words, only
one cold water supply line feeds the entire bathroom.

In all of the homes I ever installed supply plumbing in. We either
fed the shower completely independent of any other fixtures in the
home using equidistant supply feeds, or if that was not possible, used
a pressure balancing device on the supply lines to the shower, or in
homes where we did not replace the supply piping we used a
thermostatic shower valve to control the temperature.
Using equidistant piping is the cheapest way to go though.

>
>Those are the limits of a normal barometer. That drop to 950 is what I
>mean by the eye of a hurricane.

I understood what you meant!

>
>What does that have to do with the pressure on a shutoff valve?

A whole lot, that's how the valve works.

>But you said,
>"Take two identical washing machines and send one to Denver and one to
>Miami and you will have a 2 inch water level difference in the tub at
>the same barometric pressure reading."
>
>The water level in the washer in Denver will be a mile higher than the
>water in the washer in Miami.

Play on words, eh!

The "water level IN the tub" would have a 2 inch variance, when
measured from the rim of the tub down to the water level.
There, is that better.

>
>I said 630mm. That's 24.8". What are you disputing?
The variance between your two figures.
>
>>
>I wouldn't have to adjust my altimeter if barometric pressure were the
>same in both places as you said above.

That's right!

FWIW: I'm in the packaging business. We use pressure sensitive
valves to control the fluid level in the bottles we package.
We cannot use optical controlled valves because the bottles are
opaque.
Although we could use valves that are controlled by weight sensors the
bottle is sitting on, they would have to be changed many times a day
for the different formula's that are packaged into the same size
bottles.
Using pressure sensitive fill-valves, the density or specific gravity
of the product has little to no bearing on the fill level. However, a
slight change in barometric pressure can make a big difference in the
fill level.
Fortunately, a barometer is linked to the fill valves, and once
calibrated for our elevation and to weather conditions, the fill
valves settings change with the barometric pressure so the bottles all
fill to the proper level.

Because we are in a closed building, in a sense like a clean room,
where the room is maintained at a constant pressure, we have very few
problems using pressure sensitive fill-valves.
However, if we move the machines to a room that does not have a
controlled air pressure, where opening and closing doors allows the
prevailing wind outside to increase or decrease the pressure in the
room, we might have all kinds of problems with pressure sensative
fill-valves. Don't know, we've always kept the filling rooms at a
specific pressure using highly filtered input air into the room. And
the doorways are also enclosed units with two doors. You cannot open
the inside door until the outside door closes and the air pressure
stabalizes. Unless of course the fire alarm is engaged, then all
doors open without restriction or control.

TTUL
Gary

[Choreboy]

"Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr." wrote:
>
> Choreboy <choreREMOVEboy@localnet.com> verbositized:
>
> >But you said,
> >"However, using a LONG tube as the restrictor (instead of plate) brings
> >line resistance into the equasion. Which helps balance the water flow
> >more accurately against fluctuating line pressures."
> >
> >Doesn't that mean if I used narrow pipes my shower will stay about the
> >same when somebody flushes?
>
> Well, if the 1/2 inch pipe was long enough that the internal
> resistance would overcome the fluctuating pressure to enough of a
> percentage of difference, it could work.
>

Won't the flow still be proportional to pressure?

> >
> >Those are the limits of a normal barometer. That drop to 950 is what I
> >mean by the eye of a hurricane.
>
> I understood what you meant!
>
> >
> >What does that have to do with the pressure on a shutoff valve?
>
> A whole lot, that's how the valve works.
>
> >But you said,
> >"Take two identical washing machines and send one to Denver and one to
> >Miami and you will have a 2 inch water level difference in the tub at
> >the same barometric pressure reading."
> >
> >The water level in the washer in Denver will be a mile higher than the
> >water in the washer in Miami.
>
> Play on words, eh!
>
> The "water level IN the tub" would have a 2 inch variance, when
> measured from the rim of the tub down to the water level.
> There, is that better.

Why would the water level in the tub be any different? You said the
barometric pressure was the same in both places.

Let's talk about normal barometric variation. Half a PSI is 13.84" of
fresh water, so I guess a switch operates in that range. The water in
the tub will be 13.84" above the level in the tube to generate that
pressure. At normal sea-level pressure, the prssure from that water
will compress air 3.29%. If the air in the switch and tube amounts to
the volume of a 20" tube, the pressure will raise the water in the tube
0.658" above the bottom. So the level in the tub will be 14.498" above
the bottom of the tube.

On a typical low-pressure day when pressure is down by 10 mb, that 1/2
psi will compress air 3.32%. The water in the tube will be 0.664" above
the bottom. The level in the tub will be 14.504" above the bottom of
the tube, or 0.006" above the level at average barometric pressure.

Now lets tale the washer to Denver, where you say the normal barometric
pressure is 25" of mercury. Putting 1/2 PSI on the switch will require
compressing that air 4%, or 0.8" in a 20" tube. The water level will be
14.64" above the bottom of the tube, or 0.142" above the livel in Miami.
Where's the rest of your 2" variance?
>
> >
> >I said 630mm. That's 24.8". What are you disputing?
> The variance between your two figures.

What two figures?

Sincerely,
Choreboy

[Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.]

Choreboy <choreREMOVEboy@localnet.com> verbositized:

>
>Won't the flow still be proportional to pressure?

Yes but at a percentage change to the pressure due to the resistance.

A pressure change at the input end of 50% would only result in a flow
rate change of perhaps 5% at the output end.

>
>Why would the water level in the tub be any different? You said the
>barometric pressure was the same in both places.

Not actually, I said 'adjusted to weather'.
The TRUE barometric pressure between sea level and a mile high would
be quite different due to altitude. Weather conditions also affect
barometric pressure. For a fair comparison, the barometric pressure
variance due to weather conditions need to be adjusted for the same
conditions.

>
>Let's talk about normal barometric variation. Half a PSI is 13.84" of
>fresh water, so I guess a switch operates in that range. The water in
>the tub will be 13.84" above the level in the tube to generate that
>pressure. At normal sea-level pressure, the prssure from that water
>will compress air 3.29%. If the air in the switch and tube amounts to
>the volume of a 20" tube, the pressure will raise the water in the tube
>0.658" above the bottom. So the level in the tub will be 14.498" above
>the bottom of the tube.
>
>On a typical low-pressure day when pressure is down by 10 mb, that 1/2
>psi will compress air 3.32%. The water in the tube will be 0.664" above
>the bottom. The level in the tub will be 14.504" above the bottom of
>the tube, or 0.006" above the level at average barometric pressure.
>
>Now lets tale the washer to Denver, where you say the normal barometric
>pressure is 25" of mercury. Putting 1/2 PSI on the switch will require
>compressing that air 4%, or 0.8" in a 20" tube. The water level will be
>14.64" above the bottom of the tube, or 0.142" above the livel in Miami.
> Where's the rest of your 2" variance?

Very Good Choreboy!
You have done an excellent job of showing the "Atmospheric" water
level difference between sea level and a mile high.

Now let's get into hydraulics using Pascal's Principle!
You might even want to consider Boyles Law as well.
How about the density of water at a mile high vs sea level?
And let's not forget the resistance of the diaphragm in the dome of
the pressure sensor. Include Archimedes' Principle.

In other words, there are a whole lot of forces called into play here,
not just the effects of the atmospheric difference alone.

We all know temperature plays a role in the weight of water!
At Sea Level water weighs 62.416 lbs/cu.ft. @ 32 degrees F and only
61.998 lbs/cu.ft. @ 100 degrees F.

However, water density changes as elevation is increased also.
At Sea level, 1 gallon of water at pH 7 weighs 8.33 lbs while at an
elevation of 1 mile water at pH 7 at the same temperature weighs only
8.26 lbs/gal.

Therefore if you wanted to add 20 gallons of water to your washing
machine going by a weight/pressure measurement device that is set at
Sea Level, you would have 1.4 pound error in the calculation of the
water level in the container. Enough to throw the solenoid valve
control switch far enough off that roughly 2 inches more of water
would be found in the drum of the washing machine.

TTUL
Gary

[Choreboy]

"Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr." wrote:
>
> Choreboy <choreREMOVEboy@localnet.com> verbositized:
>
> >
> >Won't the flow still be proportional to pressure?
>
> Yes but at a percentage change to the pressure due to the resistance.
>
> A pressure change at the input end of 50% would only result in a flow
> rate change of perhaps 5% at the output end.

P = 3.25*10^7Q^2fL/d^5

where
P is pressure loss in bars
D is bore in mm
Q is flow in liters/sec
f is coefficient of friction
L is length in meters

No matter what the diameter in length,
increasing pressure 50% will increase flow 22%
decreasing pressure 50% will decrease flow 29%

>
> >
> >Why would the water level in the tub be any different? You said the
> >barometric pressure was the same in both places.
>
> Not actually, I said 'adjusted to weather'.
> The TRUE barometric pressure between sea level and a mile high would
> be quite different due to altitude. Weather conditions also affect
> barometric pressure. For a fair comparison, the barometric pressure
> variance due to weather conditions need to be adjusted for the same
> conditions.

In what forum did you say 'adjusted to weather'?
Here's what you said here:
"Take two identical washing machines and send one to Denver and one to
Miami and you will have a 2 inch water level difference in the tub at
the same barometric pressure reading."

>
> >
> >Let's talk about normal barometric variation. Half a PSI is 13.84" of
> >fresh water, so I guess a switch operates in that range. The water in
> >the tub will be 13.84" above the level in the tube to generate that
> >pressure. At normal sea-level pressure, the prssure from that water
> >will compress air 3.29%. If the air in the switch and tube amounts to
> >the volume of a 20" tube, the pressure will raise the water in the tube
> >0.658" above the bottom. So the level in the tub will be 14.498" above
> >the bottom of the tube.
> >
> >On a typical low-pressure day when pressure is down by 10 mb, that 1/2
> >psi will compress air 3.32%. The water in the tube will be 0.664" above
> >the bottom. The level in the tub will be 14.504" above the bottom of
> >the tube, or 0.006" above the level at average barometric pressure.
> >
> >Now lets tale the washer to Denver, where you say the normal barometric
> >pressure is 25" of mercury. Putting 1/2 PSI on the switch will require
> >compressing that air 4%, or 0.8" in a 20" tube. The water level will be
> >14.64" above the bottom of the tube, or 0.142" above the livel in Miami.
> > Where's the rest of your 2" variance?
>
> Very Good Choreboy!
> You have done an excellent job of showing the "Atmospheric" water
> level difference between sea level and a mile high.

What's atmospheric water level?
>
> Now let's get into hydraulics using Pascal's Principle!

Why? that's about confined fluids. Don't you want your laundry to slosh?

> You might even want to consider Boyles Law as well.

I already did. That's why the water in the tube will rise above the bottom.

> How about the density of water at a mile high vs sea level?

If you wish.

> And let's not forget the resistance of the diaphragm in the dome of
> the pressure sensor.

I already did. The switch closes at a certain pressure.

> Include Archimedes' Principle.

Why?
>
> In other words, there are a whole lot of forces called into play here,
> not just the effects of the atmospheric difference alone.

But isn't atmospheric difference the issue you raised?

>
> We all know temperature plays a role in the weight of water!
> At Sea Level water weighs 62.416 lbs/cu.ft. @ 32 degrees F and only
> 61.998 lbs/cu.ft. @ 100 degrees F.

Who does laundry in ice or boiling water? Terrorists in caves in Afghanistan?

>
> However, water density changes as elevation is increased also.
> At Sea level, 1 gallon of water at pH 7 weighs 8.33 lbs while at an
> elevation of 1 mile water at pH 7 at the same temperature weighs only
> 8.26 lbs/gal.
>
> Therefore if you wanted to add 20 gallons of water to your washing
> machine going by a weight/pressure measurement device that is set at
> Sea Level, you would have 1.4 pound error in the calculation of the
> water level in the container. Enough to throw the solenoid valve
> control switch far enough off that roughly 2 inches more of water
> would be found in the drum of the washing machine.

Do you propose setting the water level by weighing the tub? It sounds
good to me. 1.4 pounds out of 166.6 is less than 1%.

At 8.33 pounds per gallon 1/2 psi would be 13.86" of water.
At 8.26, 1/2 psi would be 13.98" So the water level would be 1/8"
higher in Denver.

Sincerely,
Choreboy

[Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.]

Hi Choreboy

Excellent work!

You KNOW your stuff.....

I AGREE with your calculations also!

Good Work my friend!!!!!

It also proves that one should not take my off the cuff remarks and
determinations as being accurate without proving it to themselves
first.

I admire you Choreboy!

TTUL
Gary

[Lloyd Randall]

In article <41f39769.847132562@news.galilei.com>,
raiar@bbs.galilei.com.nospam (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.) wrote:

> Hi Choreboy
>
> Excellent work!
>
> You KNOW your stuff.....
>
> I AGREE with your calculations also!
>
> Good Work my friend!!!!!
>
> It also proves that one should not take my off the cuff remarks and
> determinations as being accurate without proving it to themselves
> first.
>
> I admire you Choreboy!
>
> TTUL
> Gary
>

Now you've done it! Mrs. Bonk will be jealous and Choreboy will think
you're flaming him.

--
Best Regards,
Lloyd

[Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.]

Hi Lloyd

I feel Choreboy earned the kudo's!

Not to often does somebody beat me at my own game, hi hi.....

TTUL
Gary


Lloyd Randall <broth@eels.net> verbositized:

>In article <41f39769.847132562@news.galilei.com>,
> raiar@bbs.galilei.com.nospam (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.) wrote:
>
>> Hi Choreboy
>>
>> Excellent work!
>>
>> You KNOW your stuff.....
>>
>> I AGREE with your calculations also!
>>
>> Good Work my friend!!!!!
>>
>> It also proves that one should not take my off the cuff remarks and
>> determinations as being accurate without proving it to themselves
>> first.
>>
>> I admire you Choreboy!
>>
>> TTUL
>> Gary
>>
>
>Now you've done it! Mrs. Bonk will be jealous and Choreboy will think
>you're flaming him.
>
>--
>Best Regards,
>Lloyd

[Mrs Bonk]

"Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr." <raiar@bbs.galilei.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:41f5041f.940499406@news.galilei.com...
> Hi Lloyd
>
> I feel Choreboy earned the kudo's!
>
> Not to often does somebody beat me at my own game, hi hi.....
>
> TTUL
> Gary
>
>
> Lloyd Randall <broth@eels.net> verbositized:
>
> >In article <41f39769.847132562@news.galilei.com>,
> > raiar@bbs.galilei.com.nospam (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.) wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Choreboy
> >>
> >> Excellent work!
> >>
> >> You KNOW your stuff.....
> >>
> >> I AGREE with your calculations also!
> >>
> >> Good Work my friend!!!!!
> >>
> >> It also proves that one should not take my off the cuff remarks and
> >> determinations as being accurate without proving it to themselves
> >> first.
> >>
> >> I admire you Choreboy!
> >>
> >> TTUL
> >> Gary
> >>
> >
> >Now you've done it! Mrs. Bonk will be jealous and Choreboy will think
> >you're flaming him.
Hello boys. I have a problem over in alt.cooking-chat. I'm wondering if
it's a chemical accident thing I'm looking at or maybe MI5 have got into my
larder.
If any of you or anyone else could pop over and help me out I would be
eternally grateful.
You three are always such dears.