Talk:Pump

Untitled

What's up with rotodynamic pumps being listed but no other types described?128.120.57.73 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

History of the Pump

This great article badly needs a section on the history of pumps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrystomath2 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hand soap pump

How about a diagram how it works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.119.32 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Query

Does any body know about this pump ? There are about 4 videos on Youtube, search for user karsaj81 on youtube. Feature Set includes - Hand Crank, Self Priming, High Volume at low speed, Self priming even at 12 Feet, All ABS construction. It is mentioned that this Pump has been awarded patent in Canada already. Any Info please update —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.67.44 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Soldier" Picture

Regarding the picture of a US serviceman with the hand pump. It has been claimed by an unloggedin editor that the portrayal of a serviceman using the pump makes it war propaganda. It is my belief that this accusation is absurd. It is no more war propaganda than it would be NAACP propaganda if he were black, or NOW propaganda if he were a woman. I have invited him to discuss it here, as per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle guideline. I welcome discussion on the subject. I do not welcome the removal of all pictures that happen to include servicemen or women, any more than I would welcome the removal of any other particular group. Izuko 19:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The "soldier" picture shows the same type of pump as the one already depicted in the article - manual water pump. There is no reason to have TWO pictures of manual water pump in the article, while there are no pictures of other types of pump mentioned in the article. Additionally, the picture with a soldier is a propaganda picture staged by the United States military. It shows an United States soldier in a foreign country, a country where the United States is the occupying force, allegedly "helping" a child. User "Izuko" is biased, as (his profile shows) he served in the United States military, so his views can not be neutral. Unlogged Editor ;P - 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're going to have to accept the fact that the US armed forces exist, and do occasionally do things. There was, and is no need to remove the picture. You can't just go removing pictures what show soldiers because it fits your belief systems. If you believe I am biased, then I encourage you to bring forth evidence. And, no, pointing out that I am a former serviceman does not prove that. I am reverting this one more time. Do not change it back. You've bolded, I've reverted, now we discuss. If you can get consensus, then my hands are tied. If you revert again, you will be in violation of the 3RR. Izuko 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I accept the fact that United States military performs war crimes and aggressive acts all over the world. And have to use propaganda pictures like this one to cover up. The picture contributes nothing new to the article. The fact that you are probably brainwashed by 10 years of US military service is very significant. Prove otherwise, if you can. Unlogged Editor ;P - 02:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the best you can do asking me to prove a negative? You're not going to build a consensus like that. On the other hand, you've pretty much just proven your extreme POV stance. So now, it's clear to everyone that you're making edits based on your own POV. Thanks for making it easy for me. Izuko 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm making this edit only because the "soldier" picture is inappropriate in this context, especially as there is a good neutral picture provided. Your logic is flawed. Unlogged Editor ;P - 03:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It shows a pump, so it is appropriate. Propaganda or not. 83.131.97.164 13:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you're discriminating against soldiers. You're making the edit because you have something against servicemen, and you want to inflict your views on the rest of us. It's no different than if I decided to replace any picture with a black person in it. And saying "there is a good neutral picture provided" wouldn't make it right. Izuko 22:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

He has the right to dislike soldiers. But he had no right to remove that picture. 83.131.108.109 23:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much my take on it. There are plenty of things in this world I don't like. I don't go on crusades to marginalize them, though. Izuko 00:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting war/soldiers aside: how does soldier picture contribute to the article? It is just another picture of a manual pump. There is no need to have two pictures of the same thing, as the other picture serves the purpose just right. Unlogged Editor ;P - 02:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Both do just fine. However, that does not justify vanity edits. Based on your above text, it's clear you removed it only because you personally have a problem with the US military (and before anyone complains about giving benefit of the doubt, his own words make that exceedingly clear). Your edit is every bit as prejudiced and POV as if I went around replacing pictures of black people with functionally equivalent pictures of white people. And that's unacceptable. Izuko 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

But what's the need to have both? Let's just have the one which better illustrates the subject and is free of any controversy. Unlogged Editor ;P - 03:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing bad in having more pictures. It makes the article easier to understand. A picture is worth a thousand words. 83.131.97.164 13:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And, by extension, pictures removed are also worht a thousand words. If we allowed pictures of servicemen to be removed simply for containing servicemen, what we would be saying is "your kind isn't welcome here." I don't think that's Wikipedia's policy, nor should wiki allow editors to informally create such a policy. Understand, I'm not calling for quotas, but it is unacceptable for Unlogged to remove pictures simply for showing servicemen. Izuko 22:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If the picture contains what is relevant to the article - i.e. pump - it should stay! Doesn't matter if it's a soldier or Adolf Hitler standing near that pump. As long as the pump is there, picture is okay. 83.131.108.109 23:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mono pump" commercial link removed

I removed this - Mono pump - it appears to be just a commercial link, but if there is valid information, someone can add that information in, preferably with non-commercial link(s) as well. --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Gas Pumps

Dear Gentlemen;

I would like to ask you about why the engineers mounted the gas pumps vertically and not horizontlly, can you explain the reasons to me and I will be very grateful to you and I'm looking for your answer.

Thank you.

Best regards

Sadeem Hazem

DEAR SADEEM

WE ARE NOT ALL GENTLEMEN,YOU KNOW? I DO HAVE AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION BUT SINCE YOU ASKED THE QUESTION TO THE GENTLEMEN I AM SO SORRY TO SAY THAT I WILL NOT ANSER YOU.

REGARDS

VANESSA

Vanessa: I would like to encourage you more understanding of Sadeem's error. We all come from different backgrounds and cultures, and that means we all make assumptions about others that are wrong from time to time. Sadeem's salutation looks to me to be foremost one of polite greeting, and only secondarily one about assuming gender. I'd like to think that Sadeem could be pleasantly surprised that ladies, as well as gentlemen, have knowledge of pumps. I'm not sure that the tone of your response is consistent with the Wikipedia policy of Assume good faith. Plus, I'm intested in that answer myself! -Bernard S. Jansen 05:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Commercial links

Please could the editors of this page consider revising the links from this page. While commercial sites sometimes contain useful information, in this case it looks too much like the promotion of the services offered by the companies. ..................

Fingat 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

things to be considered when installed pump

pls sir what are the most important things to be consdered when installing pumps?

what are the major maintenace normally carried out on pumps?

suggested link to pump knowledge web site

Hello all, I would like to recommend my web site www.lightmypump.com formerly www.fluidedesign.com as a reference site for your article on pumps. I believe that you will find that it is non commercial and focused entirely on education at no cost.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jacques Chaurette owner jchaurette@lightmypump.com 202.142.129.28 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Axial pumps

Could some knowledgable person please add a section on axial (or propeller) pumps, and maybe even the continuum of impeller shapes that morph between certrifugal and axial, and the use of stators? D.keenan 00:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing

This is a very confusing site. The beginning states that there are two types, rotodynamic pumps and positive displacement pumps. The following sections are positive displacement pumps and centrifugal pumps. An apparent summary then compares kinetic pumps with positive displacement pumps. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing - I came here to learn about how to distinguish between different types of pumps and found the introduction to types, followed by the detailed write-up on Positive Displacement pumps, to be misleading and unclear. There is another fairly complete article on Centrifugal pumps, which is buried in the link list, and a brief article on Axial pumps, labelled as a "stub." I feel that these pieces should be included in this article, to expand on "types," or that the description of types should be limited to a brief listing with links to the other pages. If the article is revised to include a brief list, I believe that much of the material under Postive Displacement should be moved to its own page, like Centrifugal and Axial. Thoughts, anyone? Lyn (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest nesting the levels in this section to clarify which pumps are rotodynamic and which are positive displacement. This may require moving some of the sections around as well. Meheller (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. The pump types section needs a real workover. I will change a couple of the headings to make the division between the two main types of pump clear. I will also add some extra info to centrigugal pumps in the near future. --GILDog (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple of details to the Specifications section but I still think that this section could do with some extra revision. --GILDog (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say thanks for the updates... this entry is MUCH more helpful now. - Lyn (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if im wrong, but I remember from school that usually pumps are divided into two types: Constant Displacement pump and Variable Displacement pumps. Constant Displacement pumps, displaces an amount of fluid directly proporsonal to the number of cycles, while the Variable Displacement Pumps, generally, does not. -Petter —Preceding unsigned comment added by LesftSaidFred (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pump classifications

Hicks and Edwards classify pumps as centrifugal, rotary and reciprocating.</ref name = "Hicks" Hicks, Tyler G. and Theodore W. Edwards. "Pump Application Engineering." McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1971. ISBN 07-028741-4.</ref> They subdivide these classes into the following types:

Centrifugal

• Volute
• Diffuser
• Regenerative-turbine
• Vertical-turbine
• Mixed-flow
• Axial-flow (propeller)

Rotary

• Gear
• Vane
• Cam-and-piston
• Screw
• Lobe
• Shuttle-block

Reciprocating

• Direct-acting
• Power (including crank-and-flywheel)
• Diaphragm
• Rotary-piston

ChemE50 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

descriptions

I think the description for Rotary pumps could be improved... here is a suggestion.

Rotary pumps move fluid using a rotating mechanism a chamber that is created and progressively eliminated through rotation of the drive shaft thus drawing or forcing the liquid along. (note no valves are required... except relief valves)

The current Reciprocating pump definition is ok with me. Reciprocating pumps move the fluid using one or more oscillating pistons, plungers, or membranes (diaphragms), while valves restrict fluid motion to the desired direction.

198.103.184.76 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Play button for scroll pump animation

Would whoever made that scroll pump animation add a play button? Its useful, but really distracts one from reading the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.17.42 (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

More importantly there is no mention of the scroll pump elsewhere on the page. I suggest that someone either include a discussion of scroll pumps or remove the diagram. --GILDog (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove "Power Source" section?

The section on "Power Source" seems unneeded. Anything that can produce mechanical movement can power a pump, and giving a list of possible power sources doesn't help anyone learning about pumps. I suggest removing the section. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section, and moved the included image to the gallery. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pump testing

Pump testing was created today. I think it would make sense to cover that subject in a section here, rather than have a separate article. Any comments? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

yes - good idea - when I created it, I was not aware of the pump section,,,,,,,,,,

screw centrifugal impeller pump

I have never really heard of these pumps, the info is interesting. However, I think that this section contains far too much detail for the centrifugal pump section. I suggest that this section be used to create a new page or stub which can be linked from both the main pump page and the centrifugal pump page.--GILDog (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Eductors categorization

The introductory paragraph states that, "A pump is a device used to move fluids, such as gases, liquids or slurries. A pump displaces a volume by physical or mechanical action." Does this really include eductors? ''Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook'' indicates an ejector or eductor is a separate type of pump, since it has no moving parts.</ref name = "Perry" [Perry, Robert H. and Don W. Green. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 6th Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1984. ISBN 0-07-049479-7], p. 6=31.</ref> Thus, it is incorrect to list it as a rotodynamic pump. I have made it a separate subsection on this page. This device is also described as an aspirator.ChemE50 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Other pumps

the hydraulic ram is a impulse pump; 3 main categories need to be made; also mention archimedes screw and other pumps; see http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah810e/AH810E06.htm Take over images

also, shouldn't Rotary-type pumps be mentioned as main categorisation (at intro) or is this a rotodynamic pump ?

Using the FAO document, a Comparison of pumps article should be made

What about Scoop wheels? where do they fit in the general classificaiton? They are certainly pumps, being the active part of most early pumping stations.--Brunnian (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not find anything about wing pumps, they should be there, withing "handpumps" !? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.224.153 (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What does "positive" in "positive displacement pump" mean?

No one ever seems to say. The first person who called it that must have had a reason. My Collins English Dictionary says "positive, sense 18: (of a machine part) having precise movement with no hysteresis or backlash". Is that the sense here? It's not the easiest definition to understand. As far as I can make out, "positive" in this phrase (and some other engineering phrases, such as "positive locking") is not being used in the mathematical sense of "the opposite of negative" but in the sense of "definite", "secure", "without looseness". I picture it meaning that the fluid is not squeezed on its journey into, through and out of the pump, but simply trapped within a chamber and then shunted out the other side. Hence an obvious positive displacement pump would be a piston moving back and forth in a cylinder, the fluid being let in on the down stroke through one hole and pushed out on the upstroke through another hole. It would contrast with a pump or fan that compressed the fluid on its way through itself, or that allowed the fluid to spill around the edges, as in a fan. Am I right? --UBJ 43X (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is correct. I believe that positive displacement means that the fluid is forced to move (displaced) in a positive direction, the outlet is closed off from the inlet and backwards flow is impossible. In other pumps such as centrifugal pumps the nature of the impeller only encourages the fluid to move forward but some fluid may remain stationary or move backwards past the impeller. Hence mixing is possible between the outlet and the inlet for non positive displacement pumps.--GILDog (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. A positive displacement pump, like a total displacement flowmeter, depends upon the fact that liquids and solids are incompressible, but liquids will flow. The fluid being pumped is isolated by valves, and displaced by a moving element. Positive displacement pumps tend to be discontinuous, usually reciprocating, but see also peristaltic. The term is used in contradiciton to inertial pumps, like centrifugal or scoopwheel pumps, where some other property of the fluid than its fluidity is important (Viscosity, reynolds number etc). To some exent the fluid in a positive displacement pump has no choice in the matter: the same volume will be moved per revolution regardless of the material. Whereas a centrifugal pump will handled different volumes of mercury, water, or petroleum depending on other pysical properties.--Brunnian (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Peripheral pumps

I think more information (and maybe a separate voice/page) should be added about peripheral pumps as this type of pump is relatively recent and does not appear on the classical engineering books. My auspice is that these pumps will be treated with the same rigour adopted in the phisical description of the well-consolidated types of pumps (velocity triangles, calculation of the machine typical number and of the other dimensionless parameters, costruction of the characteristic curve...) in order to do some clearness among all the confused descriptions which can be found in the Internet, principally in the producers' websites. Thank you all very much! Marco B. from Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.162.136.65 (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Acronyms associated with pumps ...

An expert on pumps (I'm not one) should perhaps add a section on the acronyms associated with pumps, for example DNM and DNA. It took me ages to find this information by searching various documents from pump manufacturers. As far as I can figure, DNA stands for 'Nominal diameter of inlet port' and DNM stands for 'Nominal diameter of discharge port' (from Italian: Diametro Nominale Aspirazione & Diametro Nominale Mandata). Actually, not exactly acronyms, but nonetheless key notation to understand in terms of working with pumps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.9.160 (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hand or Pitcher pumps, and the "Parish Pump"

I came to read this section and felt the first few paragraphs were jumbled and baffling (e.g. the bald mention of the term 'pitcher pump'). So I have rewritten them somewhat. Because I didn't have the time to review the entire section, it still needs some work - especially with the provision of citations. Twistlethrop (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where would I park this 1931 "Altered Gravity" pump????

Folks, I came across this interesting 1931 article titled "Water Forced To Lift Itself By This Altered Gravity Pump", February 1931, Popular Mechanics. I have read and re-read all the pump description and none fits. If this is a good reference, please use it in the proper place on the main article page, please. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

This article appears to have sufficient breadth and depth of subject coverage; but referencing is seriously deficient. At a minimum, each section should have a reference citation, and preferably each paragraph, for a higher WikiProject Engineering quality classification.Thewellman (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

motor's pumps

What is the best motor which is used in pumps and is there a special situation for this motor ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.35.252.68 (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

which types of pumps are best for low head and high dishcharge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.250.93 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

grouping see also

If somebody knows how to make groupings it would be a good idea for the "See Also". There are too many entries, and the alphabetical order makes no sense.

Sections should be perhaps: Pumping methods, Pumping usage (bike, well), In life and nature, Famous פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

fluid flowrate physical units

under "Laraib Pumping power", it says that the physical units of Q (fluid flowrate) are ${\tfrac {m^{3}}{s}}$. Multiplying this by the pressure, given in Pa, does not produce watts:

$\mathrm {Watt} ={\tfrac {Nm}{s}}\neq Pa\cdot {\tfrac {m^{3}}{s}}={\tfrac {N}{m}}{\tfrac {m^{3}}{s}}={\tfrac {Nm^{2}}{s}}$

It seems that the units of Q should be ${\tfrac {m^{2}}{s}}$. Mintz l (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

SLFD pump

do you know? there is a new type pump,call SLFD pump. it's funtion is more and solt traditional pump more error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.24.101.21 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

SLFD pump funtion

1.no axial coupling to driver,and no axial noise,no abrasive! 2.freely run,advancing or back run,as soon as tuch a key. 3.no use traditional centrifugl leaves,use a speral ,but hubless,so have great active power,its output add,following its input current adding 4.its working noise can near 0db 5.it can freely install anywhere position,because its no axial pressure requirment

Dry Vaccum Pumps also one of the interesting topic to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.151.20 (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad image by IP

File:SLFD pump

new type fluid driver technoligy

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.24.101.21 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please fix inappropriate re-direct

I was reading the article on "Parish" and which has under the See Also section, "Parish Pump". Parish pump is traditionally the water pump where people would gather and share local gossip and news. However, when I clicked on "Parish Pump", I got a redirected here. This shouldn't be happening. Could someone please remove re-direct from "Parish Pump" to Pump as the the Parish Pump concept has nothing to with a physical pump. Savlonn (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Savlonn,

What article do you expect to end up at when you click on "parish pump"?

I changed the "parish pump" redirect to to point to the article which, at the moment, says the most about parish pumps of the articles that came to mind when I attempted to telepathically read your mind.

Because I can't actually read your mind, I guessed you might be referring to parish, meeting point, village pump, hand pump, water well, stepwell, etc. -- all of which are pretty lacking in details about the "parish pump" concept.

Is there some other article I missed that goes into more detail about the "parish pump" concept?

If so, feel free to use the process described at WP:EDRED to edit that redirect to that other article.

If not, perhaps someone who is more familiar with "the Parish Pump concept", such as yourself, could add a few words about it to one of the above articles, ideally with WP:SOURCES.

--DavidCary (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Prime the pump

See the discussion whether to keep the article Covfefe. ISTM that much of the same applies to whether we should keep the comments on what Trump had to say. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• There's obviously no reason to include that quote here; put it on Wikiquote if you must. Just because he's President of the United States does not make his off-hand remarks encyclopedic. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Water pumping

No sources in the existing water pumping article. Note, with work it may be worthy of separate article. But, currently as-is Water_pumping doesn't justify being separate. Shaded0 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Both are plenty big enough as topics to stand alone. Merging does not magically make missing content. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

New Inventions

Found This New Hybrid cavity displacement Pump https://sites.google.com/site/ulrichbaer/tdi/tech/vorterant working with three Rotors (minimum) and has an axial transport. Also all the Rotors turning in the same direction. Is that worth to mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:D432:7200:3D7F:C4C:97C6:C835 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

New invention: "volumetric-dynamic pump" (communication of science)

I want an introduction about pumps 5.162.129.70 (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuție:Pompă - Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:D00:7200:F988:C054:6491:27AB (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pump&oldid=1176222976#:~:text=%22VOLUMETRIC%2DDYNAMIC%20PUMP%22%20in%20Romanian%20language%20%22Pompa%20volumo%2Dcinetica%22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:3304:3D00:B941:56D6:E9A8:81F1 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Classification issues

Improvements wrt. classification are still badly needed. Firstly, there's a notable discrepancy between the statement made in the first paragraph which says "Pumps can be classified into three major groups according to the method they use to move the fluid: direct lift, displacement, and gravity pumps.", and the one made in the 'types' section which says that "pumps can be classified by their method of displacement into positive-displacement pumps, impulse pumps, velocity pumps, gravity pumps, steam pumps and valveless pumps. There are three basic types of pumps: positive-displacement, centrifugal and axial-flow pumps.". Secondly, the first list seems to be flawed from both a misunderstanding of the source and furthermore from not using the complete list given by the source.

If you look at the source reference that's given to supposedly back up the statement made in the first paragraph, it is notable that the page has a particular focus on "water lifting devices". The label/heading for the table specifically linked-to by the reference says "Table 5 TAXONOMY OF PUMPS AND WATER LIFTS", so not just pumps but water lifts also. I believe that classification #1 in the table - "direct lift devices" - is surely a "water lift" specific classification, not a pump classification, and as such whoever wrote the statement in the first paragraph of the wiki article has fundamentally misunderstood the source by including this in the list of stated classifications - a glaring error.

Furthermore, the source's table currently does not (currently) list only three classifications but six. Maybe it has been modified since the reference was made? It now lists "1: direct lift devices", "2: displacement pump", "3: velocity pumps", "4: buoyancy pumps", "5: impulse pumps", and "6: gravity pumps". Ignoring the first entry, which as already mentioned seems unrelated to pump classifications, the rest of the list seems to actually match up quite closely with the list of displacement methods given in the wiki's 'types' section. The only difference would "buoyancy pump" vs. "steam pump" + "valveless pump".

I propose that it would be best to just remove the false statement in the first paragraph rather than try to correct it. IMO the classification list really doesn't need to be said upfront, it's better located under the 'types' section, and best not to duplicate it in two places. I'll edit as such. DiscreetParrot (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

See pump classification.

According to the principle of operation, there are two large categories of pumps: "volumetric pumps" and "dynamic pumps" which are also called (kinetic pumps). See further... 2A02:2F0E:3304:3D00:CDFF:D610:B816:22C1 (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Zero Gravity Pump

I found this pump in a magazine: [1]https://www.landbasedaq.no/0gcs-pumpe/denne-pumpen-skal-kunne-redusere-energiforbruket-med-90-prosent/1556186

I traced the article to a WIPO entry [2]https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022186699&_cid=P10-L8JZWY-64727-1

But I was not allowed to add this to this page due to someone claiming that WIPO is not an independent source, and that Wikipedia do not want to talk about inventions and only things that work. I need someone to explain to me what wikipedia-rule I am in conflict with.

After some searching, I found this demo-video of the technology. It seem to work: https://www.0gcs.com/vid/Final_PilotTest_MP4Video.mp4

I cannot understand why I cannot add information about this pump on this page.

Can someone explain? Jonas Bjerkelund (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not a great technical achievement. It is a recirculation pump. This recirculation can be done more simply with a gear pump located at the maximum point. It ensures a more efficient recirculation because it is a simpler solution. 2A02:2F0E:1B:300:4CC8:CF93:7A00:A1AD (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The title of the pump "zero gravity" ???, what does it mean, that this pump cancels the gravity of the liquid ???, that it is a kind of "Prepetuum mobile" ???. 2A02:2F0E:1B:300:4CC8:CF93:7A00:A1AD (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)