Talk:Chain pump

Early comments

I just expanded the article with a brief mentioning of its application in ancient China.

--PericlesofAthens 13:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The introduction of this article currently claims "...the chain runs through a tube...". However, the illustration shows a series of jugs along a chain, without any tube.

What is the best way to fix this little inconsistency?

Does that illustration really show some other kind of pump? If so, what is "pulling jugs along a chain" pump named? A Persian wheel "Persian wheel"?

Or does that illustration of "pulling jugs along a chain" accurately describe a chain pump? If so, the text need to be updated to describe "pulling jugs along a chain", eliminating the "through a tube" -- but then what is the "pushing stuff through a tube" pump named? A rope pump? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Oppose merger -- I think the problem is an inappropriate illustration.

1. As I understand it in a noria the buckets are attatched to the wheel. The object is usually irrigation.
2. In a chain pump they are attached to or form a chain, which runs over the wheel. There are good woodcuts in Agricola, In Re Metallica. Persian wheel is currently a redirect to water wheel, but that is inappropriate as that article is largely about mill wheels. If www.fao.org is right, the redirect target should be chain pump. Chain pumps were usually for pumping out mines, but the Perians wheels were evidently for irrigation.
3. I think we have confusion with a third type, a rag pump, whose principle is the same as a rope pump. Bundles of rags were attached to a rope (or chain) and pulled through a tube; the rags formed a bung in the tube so that water was lifted above them. The rope might in fact be a chain - the source of the present confusion. Note that Poldark Mine mentions a "rag and chain pump". If used today, the rags might be replaced by rubber or plastic disks. As I understand them, the Chinese "dragon backbones" operated on a similar principle, but the lift was not a vertical one.

Can any one verify the above? If so, we need three articles, but they should all cross-refer. We may also need a parent article perhaps water-pumping devices, covering each briefly and explaining the differeces: these should be linked to the separate articles by "main" templates. The article would also need to deal with other pumping devices, such as piston pumps. Perhaps my second item should be named Bucket and chain pump and my third Rag and chain pump. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have checked some sources and things are not clear cut. However taken all together these things are known as Rotary direct lift devices (from "Persian wheel" ) not a great source but pretty good.

Noria is used by many sources to describe a water powered device with pots attached to the wheel however others use it to describe an animal powered pump with pots attached to a rope. This source uses it both ways: From Muslim fortress to Christian castle: social and cultural change in medieval Spain Thomas F. Glick Manchester University Press ND, 1995 ISBN 0719033497, 9780719033490 pg 82 [1]

Sakia (also saqia) and Persian wheel were used historically to describe an animal powered "potgarland" or chain pump however current usage applies them willynilly to any sort of pump using rotating lift. (See Persian wheel above)

I am going to suggest one article Rotary direct lift devices with a section for Chain pumps and a section for Scoop wheels and a section for the "impulse type" Rag and chain pump. Displacement pumps can have their own.

I am changing the merge proposalJ8079s (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support revised proposal -- However, I think the target should be called Rotary water-lifting devices, which is I hope a clearer description. It might have been if the target was left as a redlink until the name is decided. Merging gets over the problem of whether to use English or arabic terms, and over the spelling of sakia (where there has been edit-warring). However robust definitions need to be found for noria, sakia, etc.: it should not be assumed that all authors have used them correctly. I would recommend the use of the section in Agricola on mine drainage (and its illustrations). Care needs to be taken as to claims that they are Muslim inventions: some may be much older. I look forward to seeing the result of this merge. I think I have identified three classes of pump correctly. If my suggested name brings in some items that yours does not, I would suggest that they be dealt with primarily by cross-reference. I would also suggest that rotary excavators should be treated as a separate subject, possibly again with a cross-reference. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was premature to create a target page. Mechanical water-lifting would be a page no larger than pumps (which should be linked). If there is objection to "Mechanical water-lifting" I would accept "rotary water lifting devices". I think Peterkingiron has the right idea about definitions and using English to sort out whats what. I thought this idea would spark more interest.J8079s (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A further thought: This merger will bring together different devices from different parts of the world, which may not (or may) have a common origin. I would strongly suggest that (at least) initially, each device should be dealt with separately (perhaps as a separate subsection). This would mean that there would be separate (but adjacent) discussions of land-drainage and irrigation devices. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I started a work page here Talk:Rotary direct lift devices/workpage‎ I copied and pasted the merge pages and have been moving stuff around. Please Be Bold The Intro needs to be written and a lot of work remains to be done.J8079s (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote my last commetn before finding that you had in fact started work. Please do not let me discourage you. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose simple merge -- sorry for not having read all the above but having looked at the 'work in progress' page, which looks very comprehensive, what strikes me is that it is a page that should be a parent to the other pages -- it should describe how the others relate, in terms of history etc, but should link to the other types with 'main' links. WP is not short of space, and we don't need to merge just because we have smallish articles -- sometimes (as here) we find there's a need for a more general article. (I was asked to comment, following the removal of a merge banner to a redlinked page. This is far from my areas of knowledge/interest, so I am not expecting to comment further.) -- EdJogg (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This page was still on my watch list and I just noticed that there was still a merge banner to the redlinked Rotary direct lift devices, which was deleted back in March. I have now removed the merge banner from the article, and also from Sakia, as it is inappropriate to have a merge banner to a non-existent page.

Having now re-read the above comments, I would agree that there is still a need for a parent page called something like Rotary water-lifting devices, which summarises all the other types of water 'pump' mentioned here and provides 'main' links to the individual article pages.

EdJogg (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Note: this page no longer on my watchlist, contact me directly if you require further comment.)

Still Crazy after all these Years?

I came to this talk page because I saw the same problem that 68.0.124.33 reported at 05:22 on 8 January 2008 (UTC). And then I read a lot of the other comments, and then I read some other pages about other pumps.

My suggestion: why not create an overview page called something like "Early Pumping Methods" (or "Primitive Pumping Methods", or whatever, or even "Pumping Methods" to list even modern pumps (like centrifugal, diaphragm, gear, piston), and then describe (generally) all of these different pumps, maybe what each pump might have descended from, and then refer the reader to other pages to see the details about any particular pump type?

I'm not fleshing that idea out very much, but it would seem helpful to solve some of the problems of classifying the various types of pumps.

BTW, I strongly agree with 68.0.124.33, the opening paragraph describes only one type of chain pump, and that is a definite deficiency.

--Rhkramer (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Article is USELESS as is

Hi. The definition does in no way correspond to the further content/examples. It's not about DETAILS, it is FUNDAMENTALLY INCONSISTENT. The PRINCIPLE is a different one. The definition clearly states that the water is "TRAPPED" within a TUBE, but all examples from Classical Antiquity and China show OPEN CONTAINERS climbing up freely on a chain. In the definition, the water is likely partly pushed up into the tube by a lower disk/washer, partly sucked in by the upper one, which creates a negative pressure (suction) effect. In opposition to that, the open containers just scoop up the water, holding it like any bucket would, by using their own tridimensional "skin".

Check out SAKIA, that corresponds much closer to the principle of all examples given here! The Roman device you mention here IS NOTHING BUT A SAKIA, the Chinese one - a variant, taking water up a slanted slope. The difference here is not of principle, rather of cultural area and mechanical variation.

NOT EVERY WATER-LIFTING DEVICE USING A CHAIN AND REPETITIVE ELEMENTS IS A CHAIN PUMP. There should be a terminology standard somewhere, don't try logic, standards are standards and language is language, not guesswork or math. Also, different countries might have their own terminology conventions.

Suggestion: separate onto 3 different pages, one: "Chain pump" with justa definition, and two with the remaining two paragraphs, using as title a specific term (Chinese and Latin for instance), mention all three at "See also" on each other's page, AND on the pages about "Sakia", "Noria", "Water wheel", "Scoop wheel" and whatever else fits. It's too late to combine onto one page all "ancient water-lifting devices", since better defined pages (sakia, noria) already exist. Plus, some ancient devices (Scoop wheel/Sakia) have modern variants.Arminden (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

PS: It's not about nagging, I arrived on this page as a USER, needing the info, and was nothing but thrown off & confused, wasting a lot of time to figure out at least the basics from - elsewhere. That's why I'm saying this all. IF IT DOESN'T HELP, BUT ONLY CONFUSES THE USER, IT HAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO REMAIN ONLINE. Sorry, but that's the No. 1 principle for any encyclopedia, WP included.Arminden (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

WP:SOFIXIT

If it offends you, you get to be the one to fix it.

Also, please editorialise on the talk: page, not in the article. It just confuses readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here a GOOD EXAMPLE: Fig. 53 a and b athttp://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah810e/AH810E06.htm Andy, I thought there's no need to add the obvious: I CANNOT BE OFFENDED BY A WP ARTICLE, that's nonsense. Upset, yes, that's an option, for being misled. I just wasted time and got the wrong info, the opposite of an encyclopedia's purpose. I don't know anyone here, so cannot have anything personal against anyone. I also don't have time for redoing whole pages, honestly, I'm already lagging behind with work because of it.

DEFINITELY WARN THE USER/READER! The CONTENT IS CONFUSING, not the warnings! Nobody should use the info in there as it is now! Not for school, not for anything else. I'm preparing for an exam, and if I'd repeat what I read there, I'd be OUT and waste 6 months till the next chance. If a page is still a CONSTRUCTION SITE, it's only fair to WARN. Nobody is signing his real name, so what's the problem? But KNOWINGLY MISLEADING USERS by leaving deeply erroneous material online is totally unethical - again, objectively speaking, nothing here can possibly be personal, just an appeal to norms & logic. Just separate the material onto 3 different pages as I suggested, or find a better way, but by no means should you leave it as is. Editors have a responsibility towards the USERS, customer is king, always, otherwise we undermine WP and our own workArminden (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC); that's the only basic rule. Thanks,Arminden

Fixed what I could

See result.

Issues with verifiability of Chinese devices-are they all chain pumps? Definition asks for a (closed) "tube", these square-pallet pumps seem to be open (3-sided trough, not a closed tube).

Smb. who has access to quoted books should check again (see "dubious" tags) if examples left on the page indeed chain pumps or sakia, noria, whatever else (the Chinese probably have different names, but the principles are similar, just pay attention to the DEFINITION: chain pump = disks in closed tube, or at least similar).

Smb. else please check the FAO picture showing a PERFECT CHAIN PUMP, which I recommended in my previous talk-page message - the very long one :-) If it's free for use, I suggest you put it at the top.

Maybe after checking, remove Chinese illustration (looks nice, but does NOT illustrate the principle; lower one is missing essential, lowest part, all what's visible are cogwheels and chains with jugs, not a trace of the must-be tube; upper picture is a square-pallets pump at the very best (IF that on the right is a trough), which itself might NOT be eligible as chain pump even with a lot of good will; if it IS, then adapt definition: "tube or 3-sided trough" - either or!).Arminden (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

I mean this picture: Fig. 53 a and b at

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah810e/AH810E06.htm

Check this out: [2] names square-pallet & trough pumps "chain pumps", but that is their (Chines) opinion. If they're right, and only hydraulics professors & textbooks know that, then change definition.Arminden (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Fig. 53 a and b indeed. There is also at least one picture of a "modern" chain pump on Wikimedia: pompe à eau de Fixin If I'm not wrong it is wrongly categorized among piston water pumps. See also [3]. Note the visible start of the two tubes ( the one forward looks like it's only a fixation but there's a tube ). Inside runs a one half, one inch or two inches thick iron chain with rubber plugs each five or seven links apart. Mismatches sometimes occur with the chain where it's led around the upper grooved wheel, so the usual pump had less cover than here but those were of cast iron and most went back to the foundry. The town of Fixim pump shown is one probably with a relatively thin chain of steel inside. --Askedonty (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)