Talk:Roundabout PlayPump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject International development  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Articles for Deletion debate[edit]

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash - tk 23:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

This is obviously one of those shitty advertisement articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Bunyan (talkcontribs) 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is very much written like an advertisement. It should definitely be improved. Chwebb1 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

tank volume ?[edit]

789,500 litre means (English: "," is thousand-mark) about 800 thousand litres = 800 m3 and a water content weighting 800 tons. Rectangular sizing would be 10 x 10 x 8 m.

The thin construction profile of the tank supporting tower seems rather to be able to carry a tank of 1 ton (plus advertisment plates ...)

Therefore a tank volume of rather 789.5 litres (or in German writing with decimal comma: 789,5 l) should be correct.

94.245.201.130 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) johannes muhr, graz (A)

This article on the PlayPump appears to be self-serving.

It is admitted that the technology appears very appealing but simple arithmetic - using the firm's own claims - shows why both USAID and The Case Foundation, who were original major funders of the idea, have now distanced themselves from it. A search of the InterNet indicates that Laura Bush, while still First Lady of the USA, was instrumental in obtaining US$ 16.4 million for the group, indicating a political rather than an humanitarian slant to the project.

Playpumps claim, on their own website, that they aim to serve 10 million people with 4,000 units by 2010. This works out at an average of 2,500 people for every pump. Assuming that each of those people receives the basic minimum of 15 litres/person/day, then each (average) pump must produce a minimum of 37.5 cubic metres of water daily from the energy of school children. Again, from PlayPumps own website, they claim that the pump will produce 1,400 litres/hour from a typical 40 metre lift. Now, simple arithmetic shows that the pump must operate for 37,500/1,400 = 26.78 hours every day.

Which perhaps explains why people are now less enthusiastic about the technology. Weren't schools about teaching children rather than them pumping water day and night for their communities ?

It is significant that no independent evaluation of PlayPumps has been published.

The article could be left on Wikipedia with an added paragraph questioning how the school-children can both learn and pump for the required average 26.78 hours in every 24 hours. An update on how much money USAID and The Case Foundation are allocating to PlayPumps in each 6-month period up to the end of 2009 would also be a useful indicator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulberrybush (talkcontribs) 02:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

unsourced material[edit]

"Field left his well paying job with FGM to start this initiative. He was disturbed to see the water problems and the fact that women and girl children had to often trek distances of 8 km to collect water from their nearest sources. The idea took seed when he saw a model developed by Ronnie Styver in 1989 in an agricultural fair in Pretoria." This sounds like an ad. if you have sources, you can move it back. MMc (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Important critical perspectives[edit]

See appropedia: PlayPump - that's a much more balanced article with links and explanations of the criticisms of the device. Disclaimer: I wrote much of that article - but honestly, it's much more balanced than the current Wikipedia article.

It's under the same CC-by-sa 3.0 license, so it can be used here (just attribute the source in the edit summary). However it will probably need to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia's criteria. --Chriswaterguy talk 23:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)