I started reading your comment and was going to add something about how I always see a deep misunderstanding of Bernoulli’s principle and… Well you have the same misunderstanding.
Increasing pressure, with no other changes, absolutely changes flow rate. Bernoulli’s principle that effectively states as flow increases, pressure decreases (and vice versa) when the source is not changed. If the pressure at the source is increased and the flow rate is the same, then the entire system has more energy. Since the bottleneck is more likely to be the miles of pipes and hundreds of bends, flow rate can’t really be inherently increased but pressure can. I, in no way, am endorsing this EO or the insanity surrounding it.
The proper application of the principle is at the outlet with a steady source. It’s best explained with a multi-setting garden hose. This is because the variable restrictor is exactly at the outlet. You can choose the stream setting which is high velocity but low flow rate - a single stream shoots across the street. You can choose the shower setting which is low velocity but high flow rate - a wide stream that only travels a few feet away. However, if you try to fill a bucket, you’ll likely find they fill at nearly the same rate, allowing for minor differences in nozzle drag and assuming the stream doesn’t cause too much drag (like a 1/8" outlet rather than a pin hole). Why? Because the system energy is the same, say 40psi with ample water supply for a garden hose where the faucet and preceeding piping is the restrictor rather than the outlet. At any point prior to the outlet, the pressure is the same and any setting would fill a very tall column to the same point at which pressure from the column equals pressure form the hose. So yes, realistically, bumping up the pressure would result in greater flow at the outlet, just as enlarging pipes, smoothing bends, and swapping high flow valves.
But this is fucking batshit because the pressure has not been reduced and it’s not like we just have pumps we can tune to any pressure. The primary source is simply the height of water towers - the water towers that have been here for decades already. The most logical explanation I can give is the slow market change to high efficiency devices. But I’m gonna stick to the thought that the believers are retconning their memories. I mean, the fucking Simpsons have a scene where Bart fluctuates the shower temperature with just the sink faucet. Season 12, episode 12, Tennis the Menace, aired 2001.
Your expat acquaintance couldn’t fix the situation because he wasn’t addressing the choke points. So many possibilities. Shitting routing in the house, shitty rerouting after a renovation, mineral deposits inside older pipes, longer routing in modern houses that are bigger with more bathrooms, false memories of the “before times” invented by Trump’s rambling, insufficient infrastructure as neighborhoods expand, or poor delivery system maintenance. Friendly reminder that there is a non-zero number of people buying into this while using household wells.
I appreciate the in-depth response but I think you are misunderstanding the point of my comment.
My comment isn’t denying that increased pressure at the source can increase flow rate (note I say that you can’t increase pressure with a high flow shower head, I am not talking at all about changing the source pressure) - I’m just pointing out that people often conflate flow rate with pressure at the outlet, especially in domestic settings where the flow is intentionally restricted by design (like low-flow shower heads). In this case, pressure is maintained, but the flow rate is reduced by narrowing the outlet, which people mistakenly believe is a loss in pressure, while not realizing that they traded flow for that higher output velocity.
When I say that “flow and pressure are inversely proportional,” I thought it was obvious that I was referring to how flow and pressure behave given a fixed source, since this entire conversation is about changing only the fixture. This is more about the relationship in practice when you change the outlet restriction. I’m talking about the “perceived drop in pressure” (what people mistakenly call pressure) when using a low-flow shower head, which is actually a result of lower water volume, not lower pressure per se. I’m definitely NOT talking about supply pressure and flow being inversely proportional, that’s obviously not true.
So when Trump or others push for “high flow” heads thinking they’ll get “higher pressure,” they’re misunderstanding how their own plumbing works. High-flow fixtures let more water through, sure, but if your supply system can’t support that extra flow (especially with other fixtures in use), then the actual outlet force (again, what people call “pressure”) feels weaker, not stronger. That’s the irony I was trying to highlight.
Your garden hose analogy is solid, and I think you’re mostly in agreement with my original point. You’ve just interpreted it as a misuse of Bernoulli, when I’m really commenting on how the misunderstanding comes from conflating pressure with flow, especially in domestic scenarios.
To clarify:
Increasing pressure, with no other changes, absolutely changes flow rate
I don’t think I have disagreed with this - I mentioned replacing shower heads with higher flow shower heads, but of course that doesn’t change the supply pressure, instead the loss in restriction lowers the velocity coming out of the shower head
Bernoulli’s principle that effectively states as flow increases, pressure decreases (and vice versa) when the source is not changed
I believe I stated the same when I said that they are inversely proportional when you are only changing the outlet nozzle
Since the bottleneck is more likely to be the miles of pipes and hundreds of bends, flow rate can’t really be inherently increased but pressure can
Yes, this is what happens when you put a low flow fixture, you trade flow for outlet velocity
The proper application of the principle is at the outlet with a steady source
This is exactly and solely what I am talking about
However, if you try to fill a bucket, you’ll likely find they fill at nearly the same rate
This is about the only thing I disagree on - you can fill up a bucket on the shower setting much faster than you can on mist, this is the entire principle behind low flow fixtures. If adding restriction to an outflow didn’t reduce the flow then it would be pointless.
In short I really think we are mostly in agreement, I think you are mistaking my comment as talking about the relationship between flow and source pressure, which is definitely not what I am talking about since changing your shower head obviously doesn’t change the characteristics of the water source. If there is something specific I said that doesn’t agree with what you said then please point it out, because it really feels like you are just repeating my intended message.
Then I misinterpreted something from your comment saying Trump’s promise to increase water pressure (disregarding the impossibility) wouldn’t increase flow. Maybe you’re specifically talking about shower heads, but somewhere else trump talked about flushing toilets over and over. It all blends together in the insanity. Did he mention shower heads being too efficient, but in worse words?
I agree, we’re generally in agreement then. I did specify stream vs shower setting though, and a kinda large jet outlet at that. Maybe more like a Full setting, in my experience, but I certainly am not including all the settings. Mist, vertical, center, etc are too restrictive. I’ve filled a couple dozen car wash buckets on various settings and shower/jet/full flow comparably then, but somehow always slower than my bladder can handle.
Ah gotcha, I see where the confusion came from then. I wasn’t considering the hypothetical scenario where he magically increases water pressure but instead thinking about what will happen in reality when the legislation allows people to get higher flow shower heads (and imagining some of them might be disappointed when it feels less forceful, though I’m sure plenty would enjoy an increased flow if that’s their preference). His talk about pressure is a stand in for the actual details of the EO which is actually about low flow fixtures (and I assume low gallon per flush toilets but I didn’t read that far).
I admit I was thrown off trying to figure out what we were saying differently, I’m sure I could be more specific though about the hypothetical I was describing. I did a solid semester in multivariate calculus just solving flow equations so it would bring great dishonor to my teacher if I mixed anything up haha.
I started reading your comment and was going to add something about how I always see a deep misunderstanding of Bernoulli’s principle and… Well you have the same misunderstanding.
Increasing pressure, with no other changes, absolutely changes flow rate. Bernoulli’s principle that effectively states as flow increases, pressure decreases (and vice versa) when the source is not changed. If the pressure at the source is increased and the flow rate is the same, then the entire system has more energy. Since the bottleneck is more likely to be the miles of pipes and hundreds of bends, flow rate can’t really be inherently increased but pressure can. I, in no way, am endorsing this EO or the insanity surrounding it.
The proper application of the principle is at the outlet with a steady source. It’s best explained with a multi-setting garden hose. This is because the variable restrictor is exactly at the outlet. You can choose the stream setting which is high velocity but low flow rate - a single stream shoots across the street. You can choose the shower setting which is low velocity but high flow rate - a wide stream that only travels a few feet away. However, if you try to fill a bucket, you’ll likely find they fill at nearly the same rate, allowing for minor differences in nozzle drag and assuming the stream doesn’t cause too much drag (like a 1/8" outlet rather than a pin hole). Why? Because the system energy is the same, say 40psi with ample water supply for a garden hose where the faucet and preceeding piping is the restrictor rather than the outlet. At any point prior to the outlet, the pressure is the same and any setting would fill a very tall column to the same point at which pressure from the column equals pressure form the hose. So yes, realistically, bumping up the pressure would result in greater flow at the outlet, just as enlarging pipes, smoothing bends, and swapping high flow valves.
But this is fucking batshit because the pressure has not been reduced and it’s not like we just have pumps we can tune to any pressure. The primary source is simply the height of water towers - the water towers that have been here for decades already. The most logical explanation I can give is the slow market change to high efficiency devices. But I’m gonna stick to the thought that the believers are retconning their memories. I mean, the fucking Simpsons have a scene where Bart fluctuates the shower temperature with just the sink faucet. Season 12, episode 12, Tennis the Menace, aired 2001.
Your expat acquaintance couldn’t fix the situation because he wasn’t addressing the choke points. So many possibilities. Shitting routing in the house, shitty rerouting after a renovation, mineral deposits inside older pipes, longer routing in modern houses that are bigger with more bathrooms, false memories of the “before times” invented by Trump’s rambling, insufficient infrastructure as neighborhoods expand, or poor delivery system maintenance. Friendly reminder that there is a non-zero number of people buying into this while using household wells.
I appreciate the in-depth response but I think you are misunderstanding the point of my comment.
My comment isn’t denying that increased pressure at the source can increase flow rate (note I say that you can’t increase pressure with a high flow shower head, I am not talking at all about changing the source pressure) - I’m just pointing out that people often conflate flow rate with pressure at the outlet, especially in domestic settings where the flow is intentionally restricted by design (like low-flow shower heads). In this case, pressure is maintained, but the flow rate is reduced by narrowing the outlet, which people mistakenly believe is a loss in pressure, while not realizing that they traded flow for that higher output velocity.
When I say that “flow and pressure are inversely proportional,” I thought it was obvious that I was referring to how flow and pressure behave given a fixed source, since this entire conversation is about changing only the fixture. This is more about the relationship in practice when you change the outlet restriction. I’m talking about the “perceived drop in pressure” (what people mistakenly call pressure) when using a low-flow shower head, which is actually a result of lower water volume, not lower pressure per se. I’m definitely NOT talking about supply pressure and flow being inversely proportional, that’s obviously not true.
So when Trump or others push for “high flow” heads thinking they’ll get “higher pressure,” they’re misunderstanding how their own plumbing works. High-flow fixtures let more water through, sure, but if your supply system can’t support that extra flow (especially with other fixtures in use), then the actual outlet force (again, what people call “pressure”) feels weaker, not stronger. That’s the irony I was trying to highlight.
Your garden hose analogy is solid, and I think you’re mostly in agreement with my original point. You’ve just interpreted it as a misuse of Bernoulli, when I’m really commenting on how the misunderstanding comes from conflating pressure with flow, especially in domestic scenarios.
To clarify:
I don’t think I have disagreed with this - I mentioned replacing shower heads with higher flow shower heads, but of course that doesn’t change the supply pressure, instead the loss in restriction lowers the velocity coming out of the shower head
I believe I stated the same when I said that they are inversely proportional when you are only changing the outlet nozzle
Yes, this is what happens when you put a low flow fixture, you trade flow for outlet velocity
This is exactly and solely what I am talking about
This is about the only thing I disagree on - you can fill up a bucket on the shower setting much faster than you can on mist, this is the entire principle behind low flow fixtures. If adding restriction to an outflow didn’t reduce the flow then it would be pointless.
In short I really think we are mostly in agreement, I think you are mistaking my comment as talking about the relationship between flow and source pressure, which is definitely not what I am talking about since changing your shower head obviously doesn’t change the characteristics of the water source. If there is something specific I said that doesn’t agree with what you said then please point it out, because it really feels like you are just repeating my intended message.
Then I misinterpreted something from your comment saying Trump’s promise to increase water pressure (disregarding the impossibility) wouldn’t increase flow. Maybe you’re specifically talking about shower heads, but somewhere else trump talked about flushing toilets over and over. It all blends together in the insanity. Did he mention shower heads being too efficient, but in worse words?
I agree, we’re generally in agreement then. I did specify stream vs shower setting though, and a kinda large jet outlet at that. Maybe more like a Full setting, in my experience, but I certainly am not including all the settings. Mist, vertical, center, etc are too restrictive. I’ve filled a couple dozen car wash buckets on various settings and shower/jet/full flow comparably then, but somehow always slower than my bladder can handle.
Ah gotcha, I see where the confusion came from then. I wasn’t considering the hypothetical scenario where he magically increases water pressure but instead thinking about what will happen in reality when the legislation allows people to get higher flow shower heads (and imagining some of them might be disappointed when it feels less forceful, though I’m sure plenty would enjoy an increased flow if that’s their preference). His talk about pressure is a stand in for the actual details of the EO which is actually about low flow fixtures (and I assume low gallon per flush toilets but I didn’t read that far).
I admit I was thrown off trying to figure out what we were saying differently, I’m sure I could be more specific though about the hypothetical I was describing. I did a solid semester in multivariate calculus just solving flow equations so it would bring great dishonor to my teacher if I mixed anything up haha.
Nah my bad for refusing to Google this shit for actual details
deleted by creator