| Some additional thoughts
Tom C had asked in the other thread what I would have done. Hindsight is always 20/20 and I didn't answer the question then and held off to after I had had a chance to see and really evaluate the issue(s). In all honesty, placed under similar circumstances, I am not sure that if I was William I would have done anything different. Likewise, if I were the consumer, SCV, I am not sure I would have done anything different either!
From a maqnufacturers standpoint, the pump was tested and did not leak or perform outside of its design parameters. From the consumer standpoint, the pump leaked in its application! Heck of a quandry! As a pump manufacturer, it is "common" for there to be suction leaks in the piping to a pump that causes loss of prime. As a consumer, I can't find a suction side leak in my piping!
As a manufacturer, I tested the pump in a normal manner not knowing the installation was different. As a consumer I didn't know the installation mattered!
I could go on and on. As knowledgeable as William is, I even had to remind him that a fully flooded suction side (installation below waterlevel), like is his bench test, provides supply to meet the demand and the suction pressure did not have to build up to prime the pump and as such no leak was found. In the above waterlevel application, suction pressure built and the vacuum leak occurred. William now has a method to test for this as well by vacuum testing the pump. If the testing system holds the vacuum to the suction pressure design of the pump and there is still air/lack of prime, then it has to be on the piping system to the pump. One thing that I believe was the biggest contributor to the long "timeline" was the lack of understanding by all parties of the conditions/system.
Steve |