Dragon Pump Testing Results

[schildkoi]

The vacuum pump won't find the problem. It will only tell whether or not that the water pump holds a vacuum or not and to what level. It will not show where a vacuum leak exists in the pump or if not the pump, in the supply lines...another actually more likely place. But it is another tool for the arsenal!

Steve

[SCVkoiboy]

First, let me thank Steve for conducting the test. He confirmed what I already knew and what William refused to recognize. I will comment about William in a minute, but let me first respond to Steve's comments.

[The pump in question was brought in and tested under these conditions and performed to its designed specifications. I do get the feeling that a communication issue existed between the parties on the exact installation configuration though. In talking with William, he expressed that the configuration explained to him and much later explained to me were different and at the time was concerned with a restriction on the suction side of the system, before the pump.]

In regards to William's comment that the system was explained differently to him before is rediculous. I explained to him SEVERAL TIMES how the pump was set up, the intake and output of the piping, the length of the pipes, the number of turns in the pipes and their degrees, etc. There was no communication problem. It was simply William refusing to warranty his defective pump. Steve is giving Willaim way too much credit. If you recall from my previous thread on this topic that William told me a while ago that he knew that these pumps had a problem with the molding at the flange area and he STILL would not warranty his product when I told him that I was experiencing the exact problem with the pump that he had explained to me. NOW William is claiming that he thought my "system" was different. BullS#@! Come on people. It sounds to me like he is trying to rationalize his failure to handle this when the problem first arose.

[In short, for a manufacturer or even dealer to totally evaluate an issue, they not only have to have the knowledge (which William Lim does have), but also accurate data in an attempt to evaluate the issue completely. As I alluded to earlier, unfortunately, in our hobby, too few people on the installation side have this expertise and although William has done some site visits (not in this case), its not reasonable for a manufacturer to travel to each site to evaluate a “possible” problem, especially if on a nation wide basis.]


I disagree with Steve here. Steve implies that the installer needs to have some expertise on the system. Although I agree you should know what pump you are buying and what the application is in the system you are using, what Steve is missing here is I did all that and the pump was fully capable to handle my application. He is missing the point that the pump simply leaked and sucked in air!!! It's not rocket science! I knew it, Tom C knew it, now Steve knows it as well. The only person who did not know it (or chose not to acknowledge it) was William. Why? Because it was just about making the sale to him. He has no customer service and refused to warranty his product. Steve's comment about it not being "reasonable" for William to travel to the site is also BS. I traveled to William's site 2 times and Tom C did as well. I spent more money on gaskets and unions trying to fix the problem (Yes, more profit for William...hmmm, are you getting the picture). I bought a Performance Pro pump at an additional expense to fix my problem. And you are going to tell me that he could not have come out to my home to look at the application when he insisted that the application was the problem and not his pump?? Bull$#@! I am an hours drive for him. If I could do it several times, he certainly could have done it once!

I understand Steve is trying to give William the opportunity to pass the responsibility on to Waterways for a design problem, but Steve is way too kind about William's handling of this situation. If Steve believes he would not have handled this any differently if he were William or me, I think he is crazy. Here is the bottom line:

Customer had a problem with pump. Customer told seller of the problem. Seller refused to honor warrantly. Customer brought pump to seller for analysis. Seller conducted faulty analysis. Customer bashed seller on internet. Seller realized the bad publicity was harmful and offered (through a third party) to rectify thr problem after several years and hundreds of dollars spent by customer. Pump was tested. The results were as originally described by the customer.

Now tell me....do you honestly believe that William handled this correctly and you would not have handled it differently? Please.....

If I seem a little hostile towards William, I will concede it is so. I think it was lousy of him to not warrantly his pump when I first had the problem and I am not too happy that I spend hundeds of dollars unnecessarily because of his refusal to warrantly his product. I am not happy about it taking several YEARS to resolve and I am also not happy that William has not dealt with me directly and used Steve as a middleman. Show some backbone, William, and call me and apologize for your error and the inconvenience you have caused me. Maybe then, I will change my opinion of you and the products you sell. Until then, I will continued to tell others of my experience so others may avoid similar experiences.

I do want to thank Steve again for conducted the test and coordinating things. Without him, I would still have a leaking pump. I also want to thank Tom C for taking up my cause. He took a lot of heat from you William Lim supporters, but I think the results of the test speak for themselves and many people owe him an apology (though I doubt anyone has the courage to do so).

[schildkoi]

Its all well and good to bang one's chest and claim victory but let's back the truck up. Were you there when the pump was tested at Williams? I believe the answer was "yes"? Did the pump leak when it was tested at William's? I believe the answer was "No"? Could you explain why it leaked in your installation and not during William's test? I believe the answer is still "No"?

As far as a manufacturer making "house calls", does the computer repairman come to your home to fix a computer for free? I believe the answer is NO (unless you pay for that additional service on the front side). To think a manufacturer is obligated to make house calls is nonsense.

Let'sook at your words here:

Quote: Customer had a problem with pump. Customer told seller of the problem.

Quote: Seller refused to honor warrantly.

No proof of warranteeable issue

Quote: Customer brought pump to seller for analysis. Seller conducted faulty analysis.

Customer and seller could not identify actual problem. No proof that problem was actually fault of sellars merchandise after "good faith" test by sellar with consumer.

Quote: Customer bashed seller on internet.

Yes you did, without actual "factual" proof at the time that it was in fact a defective pump.

Quote: Seller realized the bad publicity was harmful and offered (through a third party) to rectify thr problem after several years and hundreds of dollars spent by customer.

I can't comment on "sellars" motives since niether you nor I actually know what William's motives were? It is just as likely that he wanted to find the problem as well and speculation is stricktly that and not factual as you indicate.

Quote: Pump was tested. The results were as originally described by the customer.

There were no "results" described originally, only symptoms of a problem that could have been triggered in multiple ways. Had you known "why" there was a leak (not that you were expected to), the issue would not have gone on as it did. Likewise William didn't have any more of an idea than you did, even after a good faith effort to find out.

Yes SCV, you are vindicated, you were correct, the pump was in fact faulty. You also have a new pump...larger than the original since you mis communicated the pump size. You are entitled to any opinions that you wish to have as well. But some of those opinions as written are not factual either. There is a difference between expressing your opinion in private, expressing an opinion publically, and expressing opinions as "facts"....especially in public.

I had sincerely hoped that this pump issue would "die" with the given results and it wouldn't be beaten like a dead horse.

Steve

[KoiCop]

as usual, you're right on target -- not just with the pump analysis but with your dissection of SCV's overly macho post.

Job well done. Don

PS -- You might cross-post your test results to the NI & the KoiPhen boards as I believe this item was posted in those realms, too.

[111whalen]

Steve,

Your report seems to be very objective and well explained. Thanks. I hope now this issue will die and we can talk about other issues:quality koi, KHV, and other issues that warrent our time and effort.
Mark

[SCVkoiboy]

Steve,

Although you were able to confirm the problem with the pump as I had indicated, I believe you are incorrect of your analysis of the situation. Was I able to explain why it leaked in my installation and not during the test. The answer is yes. I predicted (although I did not conduct a test) that the cause was pressure exerted on the priming pot which was not exerted in Williams test. I posted my opinion and asked others with more experience to comment. So my prediction or analysis was correct as you so pointed out in your test.

As for your comparison of computer repairmen to my situation, I don't beleive a manufacturer is obligated to make housecalls, but I can tell you if I sold a product to a customer and it didn't work properly and I refused to replace it and claimed that the problem was in his installation, I would make that housecall (if close by as in this case) and show the customer where his problem was. If you built someone's pond and it had a leak, would you not go take a look at it or would you simply say that it couldn't possible have a leak and dismiss the customer altogether.

You are also incorrect about the warranty issue. The product was under warranty to be free from defect. You even indicated the defect in your post so it was a warrantee issue.

Your comment that the customer and seller could not identify problem is also incorrect. I did identify the problem. THE PUMP HAD A LEAK AROUND THE LID. I even posted a video of the leak. The fact that the seller conducted a faulty test to vindicate his product is not my fault, is it?

You stated that I did not have factual proof is also incorrect. I had proof that the pump had a leak around the lid. The fact that you verified my statement about the leak doesn't suddenly make it factual because YOU now say it is so. Your test didn't make it factual. It was a fact even before you did your test. Just you and others refused to acknowledge that fact because you believed in defending William. Even after you analyzed the pump, you still did not find fault in William. You placed the responsibility on Waterways.

My opinions are just that, my opinions, but they are based on factual experience and a factual defect in the pump.

Even now that you have seen the defect in the pump, you still defend William. I suspect that you and folks who know William always will. The bottom line is William sold a defective pump and it took all this to get the problem rectified. That is a sad statement no matter how you slice it.

[schildkoi]

I've tried to be as nice as possible but apparently it isn't getting through to you. you say:

Quote: Although you were able to confirm the problem with the pump as I had indicated, I believe you are incorrect of your analysis of the situation. Was I able to explain why it leaked in my installation and not during the test. The answer is yes. I predicted (although I did not conduct a test) that the cause was pressure exerted on the priming pot which was not exerted in Williams test. I posted my opinion and asked others with more experience to comment. So my prediction or analysis was correct as you so pointed out in your test.

In your "prediction", did you tell this to William at the time of the test? Did you say what kind of "pressure"? Pressure is typically indictated by "positive" pressure. The pump problem was a "negative" pressure issue. I indicated in my original report my concerns over a lack of communication...this seems to be one example of not clarifying at the time what your concerns may have been at the time the issue was brought up and originally tested. Had it been, the issue may have been solved at that point, not 2 years later. Your post was 2 years later by your own admission. If your "prediction" was correct, it would have been nice knowing it on the front side (from Williams point of view). Perhaps the original testing methodology would have been bettter suited to the problem then?

You continue:

Quote: As for your comparison of computer repairmen to my situation, I don't beleive a manufacturer is obligated to make housecalls, but I can tell you if I sold a product to a customer and it didn't work properly and I refused to replace it and claimed that the problem was in his installation, I would make that housecall (if close by as in this case) and show the customer where his problem was. If you built someone's pond and it had a leak, would you not go take a look at it or would you simply say that it couldn't possible have a leak and dismiss the customer altogether.

The pump was tested, in your presence and others, no leak occurred, no explaination was given to show any other possible issue. Your "prediction" wasn't known/explained. By the way, the lid was under pressure during the testing and it didn't leak....did that make your prediuction wrong? Yes and no, depending on "comminications". It was under positive pressure due to elevation head prior to the pump even starting. Based on the information provided and the test performed without any evidence to the contrary, it is a reasonable expectation that the cause of the problem was something other than the pump, most likely based on the information, on the supply side piping. This of course turned out not to be the case but the additional information provided much later wasn't available either.

You continue further with:

Quote: You are also incorrect about the warranty issue. The product was under warranty to be free from defect. You even indicated the defect in your post so it was a warrantee issue.

It may have turned out to be a warrentee issue, and the warrenttee was upheld, even before proof that the issue was even warrenteable (?). The defect was not found until after you recieved your replacement pump.

Your next point:

Quote: Your comment that the customer and seller could not identify problem is also incorrect. I did identify the problem. THE PUMP HAD A LEAK AROUND THE LID. I even posted a video of the leak. The fact that the seller conducted a faulty test to vindicate his product is not my fault, is it?

When presented to William for testing, did it leak? Could you explain why it leaked in your installation and not his testing... and explain such at the time of the testing? How many years/months later did you post the link to the video? The video is what caught my attention and is what spurred my conversations with William on ideas of why there was a difference, which led to different testing protocols. How long after the video link was the problem re-addressed? 2-3 weeks perhaps? At most? (link posting to the point of the retesting offer by me with Williams consent) Let's try to keep things in perspective shall we? As for your statement concerning the faulty test being your fault? As a matter of fact YES, you contributed to the "faulty" test due to lack of communication/understanding bewteen the test and the installation differences. This is common for Do it yourselfers and inexperienced installers with the lack of knowledge to adequately communicate differences. Not blaming you for this lack of knowledge but you certainly cannot shift all of the blame in this regard either.

Still going on:

Quote: You stated that I did not have factual proof is also incorrect. I had proof that the pump had a leak around the lid. The fact that you verified my statement about the leak doesn't suddenly make it factual because YOU now say it is so. Your test didn't make it factual. It was a fact even before you did your test. Just you and others refused to acknowledge that fact because you believed in defending William. Even after you analyzed the pump, you still did not find fault in William. You placed the responsibility on Waterways.

What proof of the leak did you have and present to William? It didn't leak at the time of any of the testing based on the information you provided! It wasn't until the link to the Mpeg that actual "proof" was presented and we already discussed the timeliness of rectifying the problem after that. As for my tests, did you know why it leaked? could you PROVE that it leaked due to a fault in the pump and if so why was that proof not presented? Did you find that the O ring did not properly compress and why? Of course these answers are all NO. You had symptoms of a problem. As I said, a problem that could have been from a number of different causes. Until the cause was found, and found to be pump related, you didn't have squat. The "responsibility" to you is from William. With factual evidence such as the Mpeg and a plausible reason as to why from me, he took very little time rectifying his responsibility to you by replacing the pump. A pump that you could not even properly identify the size of. I inturn do infact find the responsibility of the actual fault in the pump with Waterway, the wet end manufacturer. They have a responsibility to William in rectifying the issue with the molding process.

And finally:

Quote: My opinions are just that, my opinions, but they are based on factual experience and a factual defect in the pump. Even now that you have seen the defect in the pump, you still defend William. I suspect that you and folks who know William always will. The bottom line is William sold a defective pump and it took all this to get the problem rectified. That is a sad statement no matter how you slice it.

Yep, I said it earlier that you are entitled to your opinions, and I am also entitled to mine and present factual evidence were your opinions are not factually based...instead being emotionally based. I never denied that William was not a friend. I also never denied that Tom C was also not a friend. I also stated to both you and William that based on my testing that I would call them as I see them, and I did. I expressed my concerns to William on some issues and made suggestions to him as I did to you in our phone conversation this afternoon. William took my suggestions and explainations as intended. You elected apparently not to and instead have decided to further air your frustrations. Your perogative. I will simply clarify where I believe anything said isn't factual, as I also would if William decided to take a course similar to yours.

Steve

[SCVkoiboy]

Steve,

You true motivation is now very apparent. Your "voluteering" to conduct a "third party" test is clear. It was not to find out whether the pump had a leak, but rather to clear William's name in this matter. In your letter, you clearly shift the responsibility away from William and to Waterways. I suspect that was your (and William's) intention all along. You and William suspected the pump was defective, but came up with this idea to clear William's name and put the blame on Waterways. I can see the slant in your letter as I am sure other's will as well.

You seem to think very highly of yourself for defining the defect and identifying the leaking problem. In your conversation with me, you stated that you didn't even need to do a pressure test because you were able to see that the o-ring was not compressing in the spot were I identified the leak. DUH! I may not have said that the o-ring was not compressing and simply said it was leaking from that spot, but I would hardly call your "test" a revelation and as "proof of the problem". You seem to put a lot of responsibility on the consumer which also indicates you bias to help William clear his name. You say it was my responsibility to identify that William's test of the pump was insufficient at the time he tested it. I will grant you that I didn't challenge his test at the time and I accepted his reasoning as legitimate at the time. Not being an expert in pumps and dealing with a person who I presumed was an expert in pumps, I accepted his test as legit. I think most consumers would have as well. That doesn't mean the consumer is at fault as you suggest. It simply means William fooled me and I bought it at the time.

You mention negative and positive pressure as being an important issue and I don't see it as such. Sure, it makes you sounds smarter and knowledgeable, but the bottom line is it doesn't really matter. You can beat around the bush all you want, but the bottom line is the pump leaked and William refused to deal with it for two years. I will grant you that his reason for refusing to deal with it may be understandable if you buy the idea that he believed his test was appropriate, but that doesn't relieve him of any responsibility in my eyes. He conducted a faulty test to identify if the pump leaked. Whether intentional or unintentional is debatable, but he failed to conduct a legitimate test of the pump and based his refusal to warranty it based on that faulty test. That is his fault, not anyone elses.

You also seem to be fixated on the fact that I told you I had a different size pump (1/4 HP vs 1/3 HP) and that I have benefited from all of this now that I have a larger pump. What you don't understand is that I don't need a larger pump. I bought the 1/4 HP because that is what my system needed. I had to buy a Performance Pro pump to replace the defective William Lim pump so I am out a lot more money than what you seem to think. If this is an issue with you, please ask your friend, William, if he wants the 1/3 HP pump back. I in no way was trying to get a bigger pump. In fact, my preference is that he just refund my original money. Somehow I think that is not likely, but if he wants to make things right and to clear the air about the 1/4 vs 1/3 HP pump issue with you, I will gladly accept the money instead of the pump.

As for your claim that your test would have been different for a 1/4 HP vs a 1/3 HP and that my miscommunication with you was a major point, I have to laugh at that one. Although I understand that a pressure test may have been different for the differnt size pumps, I don't think your visual inspection of the o-ring not sealing as being a wazzuu scientific study (or the proof as you call it) whereby the HP of the pump would have made a bit of difference. I think the o-ring not seating correctly is the same for a 1/4 HP, 1/3 HP or a 20 HP. Face it, the pump had a design defect and leaked. It isn't a major positive this or negative that. It leaked for crying out loud. Also, I shouldn't have to provide proof as you call it. When you return a shirt at Robinson's-May and say you are returning it because it didn't fit your brother, do they require you to bring your brother in or provide a video of your brother attempting to put the shirt on. When you return sheets to Bed, Bath & Beyond and say they where the wrong size for your bed, do they require you to prove that the sheets didn't fit your bed or a video of you trying to make it fit. Come on Steve, the bottom line is William Lim has poor customer service and that is what this is really about. He should have done a more accurate test of the pump or simply replaced the pump. Those of you who support him don't see it because he has done things for you (whether you are a dealer profiting from selling his pumps or a hobbyist getting big discounts on his products). You feel you owe him for the favors he has shown you and so you get involved in issues like mine to help William out. The real reason, Steve, you are upset about my reaction to your "analysis" is because the outcome isn't what you and William were aiming for which was clearing William's name. It was a clever plan, but I did not follow your plan and now you are upset because I am still bashing William.

Another point I want to clarify is your justification that William acted timely with the new information after proof was provided. You contradict yourself on this issue. On one hand you say William had no obligation to replace my pump until there was proof of the problem and that upon such proof William offered to rectify the problem. On the other hand, the reality of it is William sent me a pump BEFORE the proof of your test results. WHY???? I suggest (and I will let the readers decide for themselves) that the motive behind giving me a new pump at the point in time when he did was because of the bad publicity he was getting from the posting of this issue. It really had nothing to do with whether the pump was actually defective or not.

This was all about clearing William's name and you have done your part in accomplishing that. William owes you for that. I am impressed with the fact that you did give an honest assessment of the pump and posted the defect. Quite honestly, I suspected that this was all about clearing William's name and that you were going to claim the pump was fine. I am glad you did not do so and I only agreed to send you the pump because I was told you would likely do a fair test of the pump. That you did, but your true motivation is becoming quite apparent.

When we talked, I asked you why you did not post this under the same string as the original posts so that others could follow along with the whole story. You said you just did it for convenience and didn't think to reply under the same string adn that it was easier to just create a new string. Somehow, I think you are knowledgeable enough to have quite easily posted this under the same string, but maybe your intention was to divert the attention from the negative string and try to create a more positive string here for William. Again, clever move. I hope someone will post the link to the other string so others can easily follow this whole story.

[MikeM]

Guys, I think all involved have made their points. Different folks may place "fault" differently based on their own notions. But, the facts are in your posts and all who read them can decide for themselves. I'm sure all concerned have learned from this experience.

[gregbickal]

I have hesitated to post on this thread because I dont want to say anything that can be mis-construed as bashing anyone. I am simply trying to understand the issue. So, with that disclaimer out there, I have a question about the pump test.

Every pump I install is flooded suction. I question as to why pumps are installed otherwise, as I would think you would want to eak out the best performance possible from the pump. People have their reasons for installing them as such, so... so be it.

Ok, that aside, is it even possible for a flooded suction pump to suck air? Faulty priming pot or otherwise. So if not, is that really a good test of the problem? Seems to me, that the Vaccum test that Steve described is the only test of the priming pots integrity. A PSI test is how the building inspector inspects house plumbing, shouldnt that be the same method for inspecting pond/pump plumbing?

What is the vaccum PSI that the seal on the Priming pot will fail at? What is the acceptable testing range?

Now that this situation is discovered, and new testing practices are used, it should make things much easier for the Customer and the Vendor.