Rodger
- Thread starter slapshot
- Start date
shawnz28
New member
We will as always strive to improve, however, it is important to understand that what the original flow study showed. All other pumps tested share a common trait, nominal directional flow. They are basically a propeller with a safety cage. Our pump design is the only exception, we channel that flow with our housing and give it directional energy. The original study measured velocity at what is virtually point blank range and then calculated a gph from that. A propeller without a housing to produce direction yields high turbulence and turbulence is a flow with no direction, only velocity. When you add direction you keep stable velocities over a long distance and as the flow dies and loses energy over distance the energy unfurls into velocity only over time (turbulence). What the study showed in the simplest terms is all the other pumps tested dump all there energy at point blank, it has very little reach, this gives a much higher reading by such a method. Our energy has a directional component. It is important to note this as it means that a real meaningful improvement cannot be made, the choice is more between turbulent flow or directional flow. We would concede that in a short tank such as a a cube, the competitors flow has advantages and as a result we developed the 6095 and we will develop new housings allowing a choice between wider more turbulent flow and more focused long reach flow.
I am not sure how the basic physics alluded ourselves and those who did the study for so long but the bottom line is the law of conservation of energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, there is no such thing as a loss. You can have an inefficient motor that makes more noise, more heat, more vibration, but the energy isn't lost, only in another form, but whatever actually hits the water, is flow of one form or another and in that area these pumps are largely equal. Since turbulence is the lowest energy form of flow (entropy), you can pack out a lot of it for the same amount of power in, but it has no direction or reach. When you add a directional component, this degrades downstream to turbulence as the energy shifts from directional to velocity and you get a more time released flow that spans the average tank of 4-6 ft. It took us many frustrating days to figure this out and until we saw with the dye what was happening it remained a mystery, we only knew that removing the front housing gave us very comparable flow numbers to the competition and initially thought we had a "loss" but this defies the most fundamental rules of the universe. In removing the front housing the flow was virtually zero downstream and then we pieced the puzzle together and it was a shock that high school physics was all that was needed to figure it out.
However, there will be changes and the first will be the 6105 as you likely saw in the thread linked by Shawn. If we can do better we will, but we want to be sure it is really better, not just a sort of slight of hand and of course, what is better does vary with tank dimensions and we have that fully in mind.
I am not sure how the basic physics alluded ourselves and those who did the study for so long but the bottom line is the law of conservation of energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, there is no such thing as a loss. You can have an inefficient motor that makes more noise, more heat, more vibration, but the energy isn't lost, only in another form, but whatever actually hits the water, is flow of one form or another and in that area these pumps are largely equal. Since turbulence is the lowest energy form of flow (entropy), you can pack out a lot of it for the same amount of power in, but it has no direction or reach. When you add a directional component, this degrades downstream to turbulence as the energy shifts from directional to velocity and you get a more time released flow that spans the average tank of 4-6 ft. It took us many frustrating days to figure this out and until we saw with the dye what was happening it remained a mystery, we only knew that removing the front housing gave us very comparable flow numbers to the competition and initially thought we had a "loss" but this defies the most fundamental rules of the universe. In removing the front housing the flow was virtually zero downstream and then we pieced the puzzle together and it was a shock that high school physics was all that was needed to figure it out.
However, there will be changes and the first will be the 6105 as you likely saw in the thread linked by Shawn. If we can do better we will, but we want to be sure it is really better, not just a sort of slight of hand and of course, what is better does vary with tank dimensions and we have that fully in mind.
Similar threads
