Talk:Pump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am an engineering student studying at oxford; I currently have an assignment to submit next friday (10th of february) to design a screw pump, able to rotate at 3600 rpm, with a mass flow rate of 47.6 kg/s. We have finalized most of the details, including tolerances, shaft, bearings and seals, but any input or tips as to how to design a good pump would be appreciated; even if it does not affect our final design, it will give us something to talk about in our (rather large) report.

Cheers,--DragonFly31 15:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: please email 04041217 AT brookes DOT ac DOT uk with your anwser to make sure I get it.

{altered email to try to prevent the Oxford Brookesian being flooded with auto-spam, although it may be too late} 57.66.51.165 09:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)