Talk:Vacuum ejector

A simple schematic/drawing of a 2/3.... stage system ?

Can anyone draw this ? It's quite fuzzy in the text. "in a two-stage steam ejector, for example, the second stage provides vacuum for the waste steam output by the first stage". 78.97.51.13 (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Try searching for images for multistage ejector system. I do agree on the quoted statement being a bit fuzzy. The discharge of the first stage is linked to the second stage ejector suction. Hence, lowering the back pressure of the first stage and allowing even lower suction pressure of the first stage. ExTutor (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Eductor-jet pump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

5 agree with merge, 6 against merge. No merge. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Suggesting a merge as both articles seem to be about the same kind of pump? StealthFox 01:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I recommend eductor-jet pump be merged into aspirator. Neelix (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. In our business we use eductors frequently. Eductors are generally much larger than aspirators and are used for industrial purposes. Aspirators are small devices used for delicate work. Just because two devices work on the same principle, does not mean they are the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.130.244 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. With an aspirator one refers mainly to relatively low pressure air applications. Referring to an eductor one is more likely to see a much larger, industrial scale and high pressure application. --VanBurenen (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. A jet pump is a type of aspirating device; however, the two terms are not interchangeable. The two articles should remain separate articles that are linked to each other.--Bogelund (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. We work with pumps which are alternately referred to as "aspirator" or "eductor" depending on personal preference. Our "aspirator" is neither small nor low pressure. A steam ejector works on the same principle, but I would not suggest merging it here because those are very large industrial systems.Chancwj (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Both "aspirator" and "jet pump" operates on the principle of venturi effect. However, in an aspirator the velocity of motive stream is sub-sonic and in the case of jet pumps it can be supersonic. I do hope that this distinction based on the speed of motive stream velocity defines the difference between an aspirator and a jet pump.Chitraeswar (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. If a customer of mine were to ask what a Jet Pump was, I would refer him to my Website (removed) which describes Jet Pumps as Water Well Pumps designed to extract water from the ground for the purpose of pressurizing it into a tank for usage in a home or business. If they asked how the Jet Pump worked, I might then get into the technical aspects of how a Nozzle and Venturi work together. --Robert M. Tabor 14:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedbump22 (talk • contribs)

absolutely right... both articles should be merged

Agree but the other way. I think the Aspirator is a specific type of the more general eductor pump. If anyone can point out a scheme for defining the line between the two, please go ahead. Egmason (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. First of all, a link to a site you've confirmed you own and that is used to vend products through isn't really suitable to have on a site that's supposed to be free of bias (so I've removed it). I note another company doing the same thing with the peristaltic pumps article. Second, jet or aspirator... that depends entirely on what you call a jet. The hole the gas comes out of in a bunsen is termed 'the jet', and many other holes. The word has no defined meaning in relation to the sonic nature of the thing passing through it. Third, the size and use of the pump has nothing to do with the effect it uses, which is what these articles are all discussing, they're variants on the same thing. You can just stick pictures of a lab aspirator next to a big commercial pump and say, "same idea, different packages". Merge.

Disagree. The suction substance is very much different in nature. Aspirator entrains air to create vacuum. Eductors, however, exhausts liquid and possibly solid particles. ExTutor (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2011 (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.

Schematic

This image, as a part of this experiment, shows how the liquid is constricted inside the aspirator, although the outer-diameter of the tubing widens. This would also be a good schematic to have here. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

detailed image

I agree with the other comments that this article really needs some kind of cross-section image with a description of the physics going on at various points in the device. Currently the article seems to be written for people who already understand the device and goes right into details of practical use.

It could also be ok to have a cross reference to similar devices that work in the same way, IF it was very prominent so you don't have to hunt through the minutia of the article to find it. Basic introduction and explanation first, numbers & details after.

Regarding the discussion to not merge with eductor... shouldn't there at least be a section that lists "related devices" or something, so people can easily find better explanations than this article. Shouldn't the conclusion of the Talk discussion have some impact, like adding the comment ~an Eductor is a similar concept but for larger industrial use...

And isn't this a more Important device & concept than it's being treated as here (it's rated as low importance)... isn't it pretty fundamental to how efficient car engines work? (If not, then cross references need to be made to the right concept/device, prominently, because I got here by following a trail of links discussing fuel injection.) If there's a specific "laboratory aspirator" then it should probably be disambiguated from general "aspirator" as the generic name for a class of physical devices. I think it would be good if the article began with cross references to direct people to a general description of the physical principal, and to related device names (by their application), since 'aspirator' really is a more generic term that may or may not be intended to refer to a very particular device. 104.5.72.176 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)