Re: Water tank height
| April 14, 2012 01:37PM |
|
J.B.Bane Wrote:
=======================================================
> The likely explanation for the high water tanks is
> that they served a dual function as part of the
> water supply for indoor plumbing in surrounding
> buildings. For every 2.31' of elevation you get
> 1lb. of pressure or .433 lbs/ft. The typical
> water tank when full is not tall enough vertically
> to supply more than 10-12 lbs. at ground level.
> 15-20 is bare minimum for water supply to indoor
> plumbing, 40-60+ being more in line with modern
> expectations.
That could and does explain the height. Thanks for your insight.
=======================================================
> The likely explanation for the high water tanks is
> that they served a dual function as part of the
> water supply for indoor plumbing in surrounding
> buildings. For every 2.31' of elevation you get
> 1lb. of pressure or .433 lbs/ft. The typical
> water tank when full is not tall enough vertically
> to supply more than 10-12 lbs. at ground level.
> 15-20 is bare minimum for water supply to indoor
> plumbing, 40-60+ being more in line with modern
> expectations.
That could and does explain the height. Thanks for your insight.
ual Gauge Leadville Water Tank
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
488 stops for water at Los Pinos tank on closing day Oct. 1979. Photo courtesy Don Richter
The NGDF was started by Don Richter and is currently operated in his memory by Nathan Holmes and others. Others who have contributed to the upkeep of this board are (in no particular order): Charles McCandless, Everett Lueck, Ted Wilton, Cole Adams, James Bane, John Moellmer, Jon Bentz, Linn Moedinger, lloyd lehrer, Rod Jensen, John Craft, Steven Forney, Herb Kelsey, Bill Ramaley, Russ Sperry (El Russo Loco), Josh McNeal, John West, Jim Armstrong, Bob Bergstrom, Greg Scholl, Blake Forbes Doug van Veelen and Mark Fuller.