KR> KRnet Digest, Vol 2, Issue 35

2014-02-09 Thread Miles Humphrey
com - Original Message - From: "Phillip Hill" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 2:42 PM Subject: Re: KR> KRnet Digest, Vol 2, Issue 35 > Nothing wrong with that. I'm not a fan of check valves. The less parts > the better. > > > On Sun

KR> KRnet Digest, Vol 2, Issue 35

2014-02-09 Thread Miles Humphrey
illip Hill" To: "KRnet" Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 2:42 PM Subject: Re: KR> KRnet Digest, Vol 2, Issue 35 > Nothing wrong with that. I'm not a fan of check valves. The less parts > the better. > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Douglas Cooke wrot

KR> KRnet Digest, Vol 2, Issue 35

2014-02-09 Thread Douglas Cooke
Maybe I'm missing something, but why not a mechanical pump with a parallel bypass containing a one way valve the electric pump located upstream from both the mechanical pump and valve? That way the electric just bypasses the mechanical pump and the mechanical pump won't pump back to the tank

KR> KRnet Digest, Vol 2, Issue 35

2014-02-09 Thread Phillip Hill
Nothing wrong with that. I'm not a fan of check valves. The less parts the better. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Douglas Cooke wrote: > > Maybe I'm missing something, but why not a mechanical pump with a parallel > bypass containing a one way valve the electric pump located upstream from >