Check Valves & Flow

One data point from ongoing R&D: We’ve been evaluating whether to incorporate an inline check valve from Gemlux into a new product we currently have in development. In the process, we kept coming back to a question we hear more often than you’d expect: what does it actually cost you in flow?

Rather than leave it to assumption, we ran a quick controlled check and figured it was worth sharing the result.

We ran the same pump, same hose run, same discharge, filling a 5-gallon bucket on deck. We timed the fills, averaged the results, then repeated the exact setup with a standard inline check valve in the line. Nothing else changed.

With the valve installed, fill time increased by about 9%. Said plainly, that’s roughly a 9% reduction in effective flow in this configuration.

That result isn’t surprising. You’re adding a restriction to the line—there’s a moving element in the flow path, a slight reduction in internal diameter, and a disruption to otherwise smooth flow. Even a well-made valve costs you something. In this case, it was nine percent.

Whether that matters depends on the system around it. If the wells are being fed by properly sized pumps, short runs, and relatively clean plumbing, you’re unlikely to notice it. The system has enough margin to absorb that kind of loss. If you’re already pushing it—longer runs, tighter hose, multiple fittings, other components in line—that 9% doesn’t live in isolation. It stacks with everything else, and that’s usually where problems show up.

We’re not making a case for or against check valves here. They solve real problems in certain layouts. The point is simply to understand what they cost so you can account for it properly.

This was one small piece of a broader effort as we work through a new product we’re excited about. We’re spending time on details like this because, offshore, performance is rarely about one decision. It’s the accumulation of small ones.

Bottom line: in a clean setup, adding an inline check valve reduced flow rate by about 9%.