Talk:Progressing cavity pump

Untitled

I suggest that this article be merged with the Archimedes' screw article.

I disagree, although the technology is somewhat similar they are two distintly different pump types with dramatically different applications.

absolutely nothing like an Archimedes screw, just read the articles.

Archimedes screw may have a rotor and a stator, either as separate elements or combined (where the whole stator rotates); the rotor is a screw design. Progressive cavity pumps have a motionless stator and have a rotor that is quite a different design than a screw.Dagordon01 (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

i know what you mean, but surely the rotor is a screw, just a different type to an Archimedes pump.

For me the real big difference is that the pump doesn't require gravity to work, because its a completely different principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asplace (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

picture?

Article needs a picture- could somebody please make or find a good one? 204.69.139.16 (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Still looking for a GNU version... [Roto pumps] Dagordon01 (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

i did a 3D animation of the rotor/stator, with transparent stator, but lost it during a computer migration, still pissed and this was 10 years ago Asplace (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Added still images and an animation. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

nice graphically, but, educationally, i really cant see from that the rotational directions and the eccentric motion its that clear either.

PCP

The article [[1]] uses the abbreviation PCP. --Helium4 (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Moves around"

The second sentence of the fourth paragraph in the "Theory" section begins with "As the rotor simultaneously rotates and moves around". What does "moves around" mean and how does that differ from "rotates"? I assume these actions are the same and therefore the inclusion of both is duplicative. Also, "simultaneously" would be inappropriate. If my assumption is incorrect, perhaps a better term than "moves around" could be used.--Rpclod (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Progressing cavity pump. While the opposition was mostly based on formal grounds ("why move when both are in equal circulation"), there's no reason we should not defer to the term which is demonstrably more correct and preferred by a subject-matter expert. While this could justifiably be closed as "no consensus", I'm swayed by the Paine Ellsworth's argument below. No such user (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Progressive cavity pump → Progressing cavity pump – Plenty of justification in my article edit Macca2023 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The definitions of both words could be compared to decide which one is more appropriate.

1. The cavities, having become fluid-filled, are literally moving forward (or upward) and maintain the same volume (i.e. a positive displacement pump)

2. The cavities are NOT increasing, growing, escalating, or accelerating.

Therefore, 'progressing' is the better choice.

The pump had a French inventor (René Moineau) and "pompes à cavités progressant" translates to progressing or progressive cavity pump. The French word "progressant", by itself, translates to progressing.

Manufacturers that have adopted "progressing" include Artemis, ChampionX, MANTL, NOV Mono, OilLift, PCM, SLB, and Weatherford.

In Reference 1 of the current Wikipedia article (Michael W. Volk's book) the author literally uses 'progressing'. I have updated this reference to the 3rd edition and on Page 22 one will find "Progressing Cavity Pump".

Reference 2 is from a web page that no longer exists. A paragraph heading "Progressive Cavity Pumps" is followed by three other paragraphs that begin with "The progressing cavity pump..."

In the External link, Food and Agriculture Organization guide, Water lifting devices by Peter L. Fraenkel, the author uses 'progressive' perhaps as a personal preference, but water pumps for irrigation is a tiny segment of the PCP market. There are far better references including some of the textbooks I have listed in the edit. Macca2023 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title appears to be marginally the WP:COMMONNAME per an ngram, and it also seems to get more google hits,[2][3] - so overall I don't see a solid reason to change. The above rationale is interesting, looking at what the word might mean, but it's not really up to us to decide, we go by what sources say.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  Google hits or ngram should not be used to perpetuate a misnomer. Aluminum wins versus Aluminium, but the Wikipedia article title uses the element name according to IUPAC.

  The Society of Automotive Engineers calls it an engine, not a motor (despite 3.84 billion Google hits), yet there is frequent use of motor vehicle and General Motors. So, what better sources than the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) or Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) who call it a progressing cavity pump?

  I did not list definitions of what the words might mean, I listed what the words actually mean.

  I'm unsure whether you have read my article edit. It includes some better sources. Macca2023 (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. No case to answer. Nomination seems to be based on what the words mean individually. English does not work like that and this is not the place to change that. Rationale refers to this edit, since reverted, which adds nothing to the case. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  The article contains the words "It transfers fluid by means of the progress, through the pump, of a sequence of small, fixed shape, discrete cavities". So what exactly would you say those cavities are doing?? The nomination is based on what the pump is called. The definition of the word progressing confirms it. The outdated Reference 1 of the article and the updated Reference 1 of my edit calls it a "progressing cavity pump". Reference 2 of the article contains the following three paragraphs:

  "The progressing cavity pump has one rotor rotating within a rubber stator. The rotor has the construction of a screw. The screw has double internal helixes. The pitch of the stator helix is twice that of the rotor's. The difference in pitch forms sealed cavities between the rotor and the stator which are caused to travel axially along the stator resulting in a smooth axial flow.

  The progressing cavity pump has different methods of flexible couplings.

  The progressing cavity pump is suitable for all kinds of liquids. From fluid to high-viscous liquids, abrasive liquids and are capable of handling liquids which contains solid particles. The larger type progressing cavity pump can handle hard particles of 30 mm and soft particles up to 100 mm. The progressing cavity pump has a good suction capacity, but are sensitive of running dry."

  I have to say that my very first Wikipedia edit, after more than 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer, is leaving a very sour taste. Macca2023 (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm very sorry that you are having trouble, and it is not unusual for new editors who are professionals or academics to feel exactly this way.

  The problem is that they, like you, want their expertise to be acknowledged here in the same way that it is in their professional lives. And that's understandable, but it's not the way Wikipedia works. And that can be hard to understand and harder to accept.

  Wikipedia values expertise. But that is because these experts can not only contribute knowledgeably, they can also cite reliable secondary sources to support their knowledge and contributions. And that's the way Wikipedia works. So we very much want that.

  But editing without providing sources, whether in articles or talk pages, comes under the broad definition of publishing original research. And we don't want that.

  The policy is perhaps not as clear as it might be. That last policy reads in part This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. But if you look at other RM discussions, you will see that arguments based on personal views are generally discarded regardless of the qualifications of the person. So it does in fact apply in practice to some talk page discussions.

  But of course providing exactly that sort of expert opinion is exactly what most affirms academics and other experts.

  Some experts can work within Wikipedia's structures and polity. But others find that they can't. If I can help you to do so, drop me a line. Andrewa (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Your long-winded explanation did little to make me feel any better. Did you even look at or review the very reliable sources I have cited? Nothing else in your comment is applicable. Macca2023 (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I did. I'm sorry that you found my explanation so long-winded even without dealing with them in detail. Here's an even shorter version.

  Wikipedia has rules which seem to work, but if you can improve them, I'd like to do that too. The first step is to understand them and why they work. If you'd like to do that, I'd like to help. Andrewa (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I set out to improve the article, within the rules. I listed a few highly-reliable sources. Objections have been raised by others who don't seem to know much about pumps or how a misnomer has been created in the translation from French to English. The very best translation is printed on the cover of the textbook of one of my sources.

  It is not my original research. I use these pumps daily, in my profession. I'm not on a soapbox. This is why I feel your previous comments are not applicable.

  As to your offer to help me understand the rules, could you indicate whether I have bent or broken one then I'll clarify or rectify. Cheers. Macca2023 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Objections have been raised by others who don't seem to know much about pumps personal attacks are never a good idea. Not only are they against policy here, but they tend to make people discount anything else you might say. It is not my original research. I use these pumps daily, in my profession Wikipedia uses the term original research in a jargonized sort of way. It covers (among other things) anything you write based on your personal knowledge. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  The ideal contributor to a technical article has knowledge about the history, design, use, terminology, and operation of the equipment. There was no personal attack. It was an observation. Tell me if the observation was incorrect.

  I actually feel like I'm under attack in this discussion. Hopefully this is not the standard welcome to newcomers. Macca2023 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Claiming that other editors are incompetent is always going to be seen as a personal attack. Other than your own comments, this is a standard, civil discussion of a sort common to requested moves. If you feel like you are under attack when others disagree with you, editing Wikipedia may not be for you. One thing I have learned is that there is no shortage of things to disagree about here. MrOllie (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  My contribution wasn't about global warming. After a well thought out edit, and polite request for a change, I got "No case to answer". Judge, jury, executioner style. I felt it was arrogant.

  I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but when I ask for the basis and hear crickets, what should I do? Sounds like you are telling me to leave. Are you? Macca2023 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am telling you that this is perfectly normal discourse. It is up to you to decide if you can handle it or not. MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I can handle and prefer discussions that maintain a high level of accuracy and validity.

  The article in question is flawed, and the title is based on a misnomer. The sources cited in the article disagree with the article title.

  I think I've done all that I can to improve it. I pointed out the weaknesses of the objections but didn't get anything of substance in return. Macca2023 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Geez am I uncomfortable not "siding" with two extremely experienced Wikipedia experts! And siding with one who appears to be an expert on the subject of this article. Let's put all else aside: 1) the ngrams, because when one looks at the percentages to the left, the ngrams show an almost perfectly equal usage, 2) the back and forth about "I'm an expert on pumps" and "I'm an expert on Wikipedia policies", 3) the fact that the subject expert is new at Wp editing, and as such may not know the extremely important value editors place on being nice to each other (read nice = civil, respectful). Putting all that aside, the main point made above – above all else – is that Wikipedia goes with the sources. There are two in the article, and both sources call this thing a "progressing cavity pump". The first source titles a section, 1,VI,C,5,p.22: "Progressing Cavity Pump". The second source uses both "progressing" (5 times) and "progressive" (2 times). The four sources the nom added to the External links section all use "progressing cavity pump" exclusively. It appears to me that if all that other stuff is put aside, and we all make nice with each other, there is enough value given to the nom's proposed article title in the sources to move us to rename this article to Progressing cavity pump. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 20:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

PS. Almost forgot! Welcome to Wikipedia, editor Macca2023 – sincerely! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 20:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Paine. The rename would be a welcome change for the large community of progressing cavity pump users. I wonder whether the lingering use of progressive (per ngram) has partly been caused by Wikipedia. Macca2023 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, editor Macca, and that may be a keen observation; however, an ngrams viewer is just a graph that shows how entered words or phrases have occurred in a collection of books over the selected years. So my guess would be that Wp had little effect on the ngrams. Frankly, I'm not sure how useful ngrams are unless the difference is large and dramatic, or there has been dramatic change over the years. Really boils down to reliable sources as noted by editor Andrewa earlier. And imo, sources support your request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 00:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.