Hydraulic Flow Question

My vote is for 'yes'

(Depending on flows etc you may get a bit of hammer if the flow stops & starts? Or turbulence...but my vote is still a yes).

If in doubt copy the plan on the 'pipes' screen saver

Del

I'm with Del.

The reason for the three reducers was probably because the original plumbers did'nt have a single one that would reduce the needed amount.

Flow can only be as fast as the smaller hose will allow so fluid velocity will only be as fast as the smallest hose can handle at a given pressure drop.

I have used larger lines to carry flow for long distances with minimal pressure drop and then reduced down to the valves port size at or near the connection.

That is what I was thinking as well, but I can't seem to get the other engineers to step up and use their heads for anything other then holding a hat.

It seems they are in total fear of risk. The stance they are holding to is, "There must have been a reason, until we know why they did that, we shouldn't change it."

Thoughts?

They are chicken livered pillocks... of the 'we've always done it like that' mentality...

Slap 'em with a wet haddock...
they are in total fear of riskIt's... It's hardly going to make the sky fall in... is it.
It was probably just a case of using what was to hand.

Slaps furry head with paw.

Maybe you could practical joke 'em and say...something like.

'Ah, it's ok to replace 3 reducers with one as long as the pipe isn't going North to South 'cos of the coriollis force'

Or maybe

'It's ok as long as I tie a big piece of rag (or some such) around it to damp out the vibration'

Have some fun ... , but make sure you scratch your chin for a while first and suck in your breath...maybe painting it blue would help? ('paint it blue and call it new')

Del

Cost at the time the one reducer was more then the three.