Recent content by Nevill24

Thanks Justin. My wording may have been poor with regards to the engproguide in my post. Just so others know most of the errors were grammatical/administrative type errors so don't let that shy you away and Justin was very responsive to my emails. Highly recommend future test takers pick up...

After getting the news that I passed I would first like to thank everyone for their help on these forums.  It was extremely beneficial to get input from so many that have passed the exam. Second I figured it would only be fair to share my experience with the exam (especially given the new...

Agree with everyone on the TFS.  The practice exam definitely emphasized different material than the actual exam.  However I will say the exam did stick to the spec.  Unfortunately this material was not covered well in any of the practice material that I used during studying. Based on Justin's...

Thanks for the feedback from both of you.  Starquest, I actually discovered oughtredco from your post in the "How I Passed the Thermal / Fluid PE exam" thread so I figured I would check it out.  I thought there were quite a few questions on the TFS breadth session that seemed like good practice...

Plotted everything in excel which hopefully will clarify anything for anyone that is interested down the road.  I just did smooth lines so it stands out better, but for more accuracy you can do a trend line....Thankfully we will not have to do this on the actual exam!  

OK I didn't notice in your last post that you acknowledged the difference...But taking that pump curve which is completely different than the 2016 practice exam using the method that I say is correct you get guess it...65ft.  My guess is NCEES expanded the plot, changed the system curve, but did...

Ahhh ha...That's a completely different system curve than what is included on the 2016 practice exam.  Hopefully that is what you have been basing everything off of. Go back and look at the curves we have posted and you will see the difference.

Well it doesn't change the answer that would be selected as Audi points out using logic 65 ft is really the only thing that is event remotely feasible.   Personally I just thought it was a bit wacky of a best choice and while Audi may think I'm crazy at least I'm not the only one that is!

That's exactly what I am doing!  The flow does not triple because it most follow the system curve!.  You tripled the flow and found where it intersected the y-axis for head.  This assumes there is absolutely no friction and the system curve is flat.  See below it's kind of sloppy, but hopefully...

Forgot to add.  So if you see that the operating point of 3 pumps in parallel is 500-520 units (lets gpm as you pointed out its unit less).  If you were to measure the flow at the discharge header on 3 pumps you would measure the 500-520 gpm.  What would you measure if you took a flow...

You must be looking at the graph incorrectly.  See below. Do you not agree that the flow for 3 pumps in parallel triples that of a single pump at a given head?  Look at the uploaded image of the curves given on the practice exam.  The graph i have in my post above is just taking the data from...

I don't disagree with anything your saying Audi. I took the practice exam and selected 65ft for the reasons you point out. That said, I just feel it is a poor choice provided by NCEES. Only way you go above the pump curve like that is with an oversized impeller, clearances are tightened, VFD...

Sorry really struggling on this...hopefully that will be out of my system come Friday! See attached

Here's a illustration that should help clarify things...

167 gpm is where the combined 3 parallel pump curve intersects the system curve. By the statement above I mean 167 gpm each which multiplied by 3 gives total flow of 500 gpm and intersects at 55 ft head on system curve Essentially 1 pump 167gpm 55 ft head, 3 pumps in parallel 500 gpm 55 ft...