PDA

View Full Version : Looking for a flow meter...



jm3000x
04-25-2009, 01:14 AM
I was wondering if anyone can tell me where to buy a relatively accurate flow meter. Hopefully reasonably priced, if possible. Desperately need a method to test output - other than filling a bottle with gas output. Please help. Thanks!

Q-Hack!
04-25-2009, 01:32 AM
I was wondering if anyone can tell me where to buy a relatively accurate flow meter. Hopefully reasonably priced, if possible. Desperately need a method to test output - other than filling a bottle with gas output. Please help. Thanks!

Getting one that accurately measures Hydrogen will not be accurate for measuring Oxygen. and visa versa. I have never seen one that is designed to measure HHO specifically. At least not one that was truly accurate. Most people that sell them for HHO just use a standard Oxygen / air flow meter which is close enough for general use.

http://www.claflinequip.com/ProductDetail/?productid=1230&cmpid=IWO9901000002

mytoyotasucks
04-25-2009, 10:08 AM
Getting one that accurately measures Hydrogen will not be accurate for measuring Oxygen. and visa versa. I have never seen one that is designed to measure HHO specifically. At least not one that was truly accurate. Most people that sell them for HHO just use a standard Oxygen / air flow meter which is close enough for general use.

http://www.claflinequip.com/ProductDetail/?productid=1230&cmpid=IWO9901000002

i have one of these, and if u produce any steam it f*cks up the reading. I dont use it any more.

BoyntonStu
04-25-2009, 10:43 AM
I was wondering if anyone can tell me where to buy a relatively accurate flow meter. Hopefully reasonably priced, if possible. Desperately need a method to test output - other than filling a bottle with gas output. Please help. Thanks!


Make one for free out of soda bottles.

Much more accurate than a flow meter made for measuring the flow of a single gas.

BoyntonStu

BoyntonStu
04-25-2009, 10:44 AM
i have one of these, and if u produce any steam it f*cks up the reading. I dont use it any more.

Update please on you MPG gain?

BoyntonStu

mytoyotasucks
04-25-2009, 11:03 AM
Update please on you MPG gain?

BoyntonStu

actually right now none of my cars have HHO on them, Im still laid up with a broken leg. And i sold my 89 Caddy.

but will be going from wet to fry cell, my nephew has one of my wet cells in is 5 cylinder Audi, and he's getting 2 - 4 mpg more.

Will update sigy

jm3000x
04-25-2009, 06:36 PM
Make one for free out of soda bottles.

Much more accurate than a flow meter made for measuring the flow of a single gas.

BoyntonStu
By soda bottles, you mean: running a tube into a 1 liter bottle with the bottom cut out & measuring how quickly it fills with gas & causes the bottle to rise out of a container of water? Just want to be clear & make sure this method is accurate. - I'm seeing a lot of outlandish output results recently online, & was curious if using a flowmeter removed the back pressure associated with water testing, and yielded higher readings (or if a lot of people are just full of it.) I'm looking for the best reading I can get without spending a ton. Thanks!

Roland Jacques
04-27-2009, 05:45 PM
The normal Ball in tube Flow Meters, suck for our purposes. the air flow meters measuring dry HHO can be mathematically compensated (memory serves me they are about 30% off) the bottle method is far more accurate.

But for true accuracy use the bottle method and adjust for gas temp & atmospheric pressure

HHO BLASTER
04-27-2009, 10:27 PM
The normal Ball in tube Flow Meters, suck for our purposes. the air flow meters measuring dry HHO can be mathematically compensated (memory serves me they are about 30% off) the bottle method is far more accurate.

But for true accuracy use the bottle method and adjust for gas temp & atmospheric pressure

would this work

http://inspectusa.com/images/RA-50005-1.jpg

http://inspectusa.com/manometer-analog-water-column-inclined-vertical-ra500051-with-specific-gravity-gage-brass-fittings-dual-tubing-p-1224.html

Roland Jacques
04-27-2009, 10:52 PM
Yeah that's the same brand i have. Thats for pressure... Thier type of flow meters are OK for quick references. But i prefer the bottle method for accuracy.

FWIW, Dwyer's tech support is awesome, just call them and they already have the conversion math formula done for HHO. they well let you know what to multiply your reading by to get correct flow. It would be good to post the correction factor if you get it.

Roland Jacques
04-27-2009, 11:08 PM
I like these RMB-21 (0.5-5.0 LPM) or 26 (1.0-10.0 LPM) you can use these inline so you can moniter performance on the engine. and the price is right. (Dont forget the to get the correction #)
http://dwyerinstruments.dirxion.com/Main.asp

jm3000x
04-28-2009, 02:45 AM
Thanks for the good info! That's exactly what I am looking for.

mileageseeker
05-19-2009, 09:12 AM
The numbers 21 & 26 are for series RMA not RMB. RMB series start with number 49 and go up. The RMA 26 (.5 -5 LPM AIR) is equivalent to a little more than 7 LPM HHO, the RMA 21 (1-10 LPM AIR) is equivalent to almost 15 LPM HHO. I consulted with Dwyer last September while building our flow bench. I bought two 150 mm VA series flow meters with 20 to 1 turn down ratio. At that time I was given the conversion equation; Q2 (LPM HHO) = Q1 (observed LPM AIR) times the square root of 1 over the sg of HHO (.414). This works out to be a matter of multiplying the flow meter reading in LPM AIR by 1.55 to get LPM HHO. I used this conversion for awhile but somehow the numbers just didn't jive with calculated flow rates. My HHO LPM numbers seemed too high. Getting back to Dwyer it was suggested I contact the actual manufacturer of the meters, Aalborg. After consulting with their engineering department I found that the equation I had been given was OK for a quick down and dirty conversion but not of high accuracy. I was informed that accurate conversion involved a much more complex set of equations. Since they actually made our meters they offered to take the flow tube numbers and the various floats being used and within a week supplied me with correct numbers. My partner and I are now in the process of creating conversion charts for RMB 49's & 50's and we also received a super deal on some VFA-4 ssv's. The 49's will measure to just less than 3.5 LPM HHO, the 50's and VFA-4's will measure to just less than 7 LPM HHO. We will have these available at the JARBOE"S MILL Alternative Energy Partnership “Show ‘N Tell” Conference on MAY 30 & 31. A few thoughts about floating pop bottles. When one takes into account the bottle bouncing off the sides of its cylinder as it rises, water surface tension, the changing buoyancy of the bottle as it rises, error in starting & stopping the watch, mass of the bottle, its easy to see the accumulated inaccuracy of this measurement method. This method is used by many and can prove useful as a relative measurement to see if design changes are beneficial or not. When using a bottle for continuous testing it must be repeatedly "reloaded" whereas when utilizing a calibrated flow meter, readings are continuously real time, making MMW calculations a snap.

Roland Jacques
05-20-2009, 08:58 AM
This works out to be a matter of multiplying the flow meter reading in LPM AIR by 1.55 to get LPM HHO.
So did Dwyer say this number was good with there RMA & RMB series meters?


I was informed that accurate conversion involved a much more complex set of equations. Since they actually made our meters they offered to take the flow tube numbers and the various floats being used and within a week supplied me with correct numbers. My partner and I are now in the process of creating conversion charts for RMB 49's & 50's and we also received a super deal on some VFA-4 ssv's. The 49's will measure to just less than 3.5 LPM HHO, the 50's and VFA-4's will measure to just less than 7 LPM HHO. We will have these available at the JARBOE"S MILL Alternative Energy Partnership “Show ‘N Tell” Conference on MAY 30 & 31. .

For those of us who wont be at the show will you have a price and availability?


A few thoughts about floating pop bottles. When one takes into account the bottle bouncing off the sides of its cylinder as it rises, water surface tension, the changing buoyancy of the bottle as it rises, error in starting & stopping the watch, mass of the bottle, its easy to see the accumulated inaccuracy of this measurement method. This method is used by many and can prove useful as a relative measurement to see if design changes are beneficial or not. When using a bottle for continuous testing it must be repeatedly "reloaded" whereas when utilizing a calibrated flow meter, readings are continuously real time, making MMW calculations a snap.

bottle bouncing off the sides of its cylinder as it rises, water surface tension, the changing buoyancy of the bottle as it rises. I believe these effects are VERY minor, Less the 1% effect on values. Start and stop time is another story. (larger bottles being less effected by start stop times than smaller bottles)

I think the most overlooked factor is temperature and this can make a big difference, weather you use bottles or flow meters. Did you get any adjustment factors for varying Temperature's?


FWIW another source for inaccuracy in our testing comes from multimeters, volt & amp meters and how we read the analog ones... I tried 4 different meters testing for volts and i got 4 different readings. from 19-12.9 on the same test.

mileageseeker
05-21-2009, 02:50 PM
So did Dwyer say this number was good with there RMA & RMB series meters? They told me this equation is used to convert LPM air to LPM hho. As previously stated I used this equation for a while last year and found it’s accuracy wanting. I use two different VA meters from Dwyer each with dual floats and after going to the maker of the meters I now have accurate conversions.

bottle bouncing off the sides of its cylinder as it rises, water surface tension, the changing buoyancy of the bottle as it rises. I believe these effects are VERY minor, Less the 1% effect on values. Actually quite a bit more than 1%, varying between 5 & 10%.

larger bottles being less effected by start stop times than smaller bottles. Larger bottles having much more error due to buoyancy and mass.

I think the most overlooked factor is temperature and this can make a big difference, weather you use bottles or flow meters. Did you get any adjustment factors for varying Temperature's? Temperature has less effect then you think, you should run your test gas through a bubbler and a dryer before measuring. Typical flow meters are calibrated at 70 F, a 10 to 15 degree temp difference makes virtually no measurement difference. Pressure is more critical, typical flow meters are calibrated at 1 bar. The meter exit should remain unrestricted; restrictions will introduce error to the measurement.

http://www.lightobject.com/Digital-DC-PowerWatt-Meter-red-P237.aspx This is the meter I installed on our flow bench, checked it against two other DMM’s, it’s very accurate. The direct reading of watts is extremely handy for fast mmw calculations. With real-time flow numbers and direct readout of watts, just punch two numbers into the calculator and bingo “MMW”. It’s easy to take rapid repeat readings to plot an mmw vs electrolyte temp curve.

For those of us who won’t be at the show will you have a price and availability? We have some listed on our website, http://mileageseekershho.webs.com/, and will be expanding our offerings when we return from the conference.

Roland Jacques
05-21-2009, 11:16 PM
I love that watt meter! I might have t get one of those.

We may have to agree to disagree about what does and does not effect measurements when it comes to using the bottle method.

10 + years of full time repairing and testing pneumatic components for a Delta Airlines gives me some confidence in the bottle method. We used and had many types of flow meters that were at our disposal, many tens of thousands of dollars invested in flow testing equipment. At times, when it came to more critical small flow measurements, we used the bottle method. It is an approved method of the FAA and our aviation engineering team.

The only back pressure created when using the bottle method is how deep in the water you submerge the hose's outlet, period.
Remember "Inches of water" is a unit of measurement for pressure, so if your hose outlet is 27" H2o below the surface, then your back pressure equals 1 PSI. Our bottles are not but about 15". So 15" H2o is the only possible back pressure it can have on our gas that we are testing.
Regardless what the bottle deals with, even if the bottle was made of lead and did not move at all, the back pressure could only be the distances from the surface of the water too the bottom of the bottle , 15" H2o or 0.5 PSI Max.

BUT If you believe the 0.5 PSI, or bumping the sides, or buoyancy and mass, etc, will effect your reading. You can simple lift the bottle (full of water) out of the water so that only the mouth of the bottle is still submerged, then raise the hose outlet so it right at the surface also. Now you will have zero back pressure, zero bumping, drag,... Now do your testing, you'll have the same results.
You can even take it further and move your hose outlet to the top of the bottle, you'll then have a negative pressure or vacuum acting on your gas... Velocity type flow-meters (measuring gas movement than converting that into volume) are convenient. But for accuracy, a straight forward volume device ( litter bottle) is going to be the better choice.

FWIW the plastic bottle is virtually neutral buoyancy in water, and the weight of the bottle (2 liter bottle> 2 OZ) can only create at most 1/20Th of 1 psi compression on the gases. I don't know of any cell output that is affected by 1/20th of 1 psi, or for that matter even 1 PSI.


I'll leave temperature alone, for now, But even small temps variance .... Ooops almost got going again

Q-Hack!
05-23-2009, 02:22 AM
I'll leave temperature alone, for now, But even small temps variance .... Ooops almost got going again

A true sign of somebody passionate about HHO! Keep that advice coming. :)

hydroxyNUT
05-23-2009, 10:33 PM
You know, I think the so-called "mentors" of this site totally missed the point that "mileageseeker" was making, and that is we must take advantage of the most useful tools available to us. I personally saw the mileageseekers flow bench in action at the HHO Games in Florida back in November, 2008, and the flow meters used were factory calibrated for and does accurately measure HHO gas volume. They took the time to show that the measured gas and calculated volume match when testing an efficient cell design such as with a dry cell. I watch all the online forums to learn as much as possible, and believe that this time you guys have your blinders on. I would suggest a poll be taken to see what other forum members think about remaining in the dark ages, opting for a "horse & buggy pop bottle" instead of a tool that could help any cell builder determine whether minor changes in a cell design make a positive or negative effect on its efficiency... but what do I know, I'm not a mentor.

Did you ever wonder why true HHO players such as Smartscarecrow have stopped posting on this site? Let's applaud people like Smartscarecrow, ZeroFossilFuels & MileageseekersHHO for having the foresight to make advances in this exciting new technology.

Q-Hack!
05-23-2009, 10:47 PM
You know, I think the so-called "mentors" of this site totally missed the point that "mileageseeker" was making, and that is we must take advantage of the most useful tools available to us. I personally saw the mileageseekers flow bench in action at the HHO Games in Florida back in November, 2008, and the flow meters used were factory calibrated for and does accurately measure HHO gas volume. They took the time to show that the measured gas and calculated volume match when testing an efficient cell design such as with a dry cell. I watch all the online forums to learn as much as possible, and believe that this time you guys have your blinders on. I would suggest a poll be taken to see what other forum members think about remaining in the dark ages, opting for a "horse & buggy pop bottle" instead of a tool that could help any cell builder determine whether minor changes in a cell design make a positive or negative effect on its efficiency... but what do I know, I'm not a mentor.

Did you ever wonder why true HHO players such as Smartscarecrow have stopped posting on this site? Let's applaud people like Smartscarecrow, ZeroFossilFuels & MileageseekersHHO for having the foresight to make advances in this exciting new technology.

I will be the first to admit that I don't know everything. so, rather than flame-baste; post a link... It does wonders to help share information. :D

HHO BLASTER
05-23-2009, 10:48 PM
You know, I think the so-called "mentors" of this site totally missed the point that "mileageseeker" was making, and that is we must take advantage of the most useful tools available to us. I personally saw the mileageseekers flow bench in action at the HHO Games in Florida back in November, 2008, and the flow meters used were factory calibrated for and does accurately measure HHO gas volume. They took the time to show that the measured gas and calculated volume match when testing an efficient cell design such as with a dry cell. I watch all the online forums to learn as much as possible, and believe that this time you guys have your blinders on. I would suggest a poll be taken to see what other forum members think about remaining in the dark ages, opting for a "horse & buggy pop bottle" instead of a tool that could help any cell builder determine whether minor changes in a cell design make a positive or negative effect on its efficiency... but what do I know, I'm not a mentor.

Did you ever wonder why true HHO players such as Smartscarecrow have stopped posting on this site? Let's applaud people like Smartscarecrow, ZeroFossilFuels & MileageseekersHHO for having the foresight to make advances in this exciting new technology.

Wow, strong words for a first post

hydroxyNUT
05-23-2009, 11:07 PM
Sorry to all the MENTORS, but it was meant to be a wake-up call. I was very interested to see mileageseekers post on your forums, and I'd hate to see another good poster leave this forum. As soon as I can scrape up the money, I'm buying one of mileageseekers lower volume calibrated flow meters.

And regarding taking that POLL, I'll be the first to vote FOR the accurate technology measured in "real-time"... what can be better?

hydroxyNUT
05-23-2009, 11:44 PM
I've got a question for the mileageseeker... Is it true that another reason for inaccuracy in HHO volume measurement with the pop bottle is steam volume even if you run the gases thru a good bubbler and desiccant? I know the measurements I've observed with the pop bottle method produced from my 4N4 dry cell have an MMW efficiency calc too high to be true. I've seen many experimenters claim ridiculous MMW's... What MMW efficiency would be considered AT UNITY?

Thanks for your reply, in advance.

Roland Jacques
05-25-2009, 01:05 AM
You know, I think the so-called "mentors" of this site totally missed the point that "mileageseeker" was making, and that is we must take advantage of the most useful tools available to us. I personally saw the mileageseekers flow bench in action at the HHO Games in Florida back in November, 2008, and the flow meters used were factory calibrated for and does accurately measure HHO gas volume. They took the time to show that the measured gas and calculated volume match when testing an efficient cell design such as with a dry cell. I watch all the online forums to learn as much as possible, and believe that this time you guys have your blinders on. I would suggest a poll be taken to see what other forum members think about remaining in the dark ages, opting for a "horse & buggy pop bottle" instead of a tool that could help any cell builder determine whether minor changes in a cell design make a positive or negative effect on its efficiency... but what do I know, I'm not a mentor.

Did you ever wonder why true HHO players such as Smartscarecrow have stopped posting on this site? Let's applaud people like Smartscarecrow, ZeroFossilFuels & MileageseekersHHO for having the foresight to make advances in this exciting new technology.

The mentor thing just means someone has done 100 posts.

I don’t know it all when it comes to HHO, not even close . But I think this is a forum to openly share ideas, opinions, and objections and ask questions. If you think we should not comment on subjects because of the risk of offending someone, well then we could just agree to disagree. I think we would be doing a disservice to everyone, including ourselves if we let thing we see as untruths stand. We should all feel welcome to share our thoughts, offending or not. Maybe we should clearly state opinions as opinions, ideas as such, and things we know as facts, as facts. This is my opinion, no flame, just sharing my opinion.



That said, I think I have something to share when it comes to testing flows…. A few months few mechanic technician schools. Two years of Airframe and Powerplant School. Many advance courses and training in aviation pneumatics and hydraulics. That combined with years of full time pneumatic testing makes me comfortable with this subject. I’ve used more kinds of flow meters than most builder of HHO equipment will ever see, so on this subject, I'm not bragging just clarifying, I actually might have something worth sharing. If you think I should not comment on this subject unless i have a real cool name then you can just call me ZerosmackcrowHHO-Bro :rolleyes:


No one should think for a moment that this cheap and easy method of testing (bottle method) is somehow inadequate or inferior to $$$ flow meters … in ways that they are not. I personally have 4 of my own RMA & RMB Dwyer flow meters and enjoy using them. They do have good use applications but they are affected by a few more things than the bottle, this is my opinion and I believe I can prove this. Now this I can state this as a fact “ I get more accurate readings from my pop bottle than my flow meters.” What I stated in early post as facts, are indeed facts, I am willing to openly discuss them with anybody. If you think I’m wrong, I would love to hear why, and discuss it further. But try to be more constructive and point out where you think I'm wrong, instead of just saying I live in the dark ages...

I did not knock Milageseekers method of testing, or his flow meters. I was specific about certain parts of his statements. Me and my horse and buggy are simply rebutting his false statements. His stated inaccuracy about the bottle method are wrong! My statement about pressures are facts, Not opinions, Facts, and I am prepared to back them up even with my blinders on. There is more than enough BS in this industry; we need to make every effort to stay factual and honest. I have no vested interest in what you or anyone uses and I'm not selling anything this is my hobby.

Roland AKA ZerosmackcrowHHO-Bro :D

Roland Jacques
05-28-2009, 05:46 PM
bottle bouncing off the sides of its cylinder as it rises, water surface tension, the changing buoyancy of the bottle as it rises. I believe these effects are VERY minor, Less the 1% effect on values.
Actually quite a bit more than 1%, varying between 5 & 10%.

Its actually Far less than 1 %. Even if you did not allow a 2 little bottle to move at all, it would be only off by 3% max. apply Boyle's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws


larger bottles being less effected by start stop times than smaller bottles.
Larger bottles having much more error due to buoyancy and mass.
already addressed this is not true. refer to Boyle's law





I think the most overlooked factor is temperature and this can make a big difference, weather you use bottles or flow meters. Did you get any adjustment factors for varying Temperature's?
Temperature has less effect then you think, you should run your test gas through a bubblier and a dryer before measuring. Typical flow meters are calibrated at 70 F, a 10 to 15 degree temp difference makes virtually no measurement difference.

Ok i had time to look at this temp issue. We disagree on this point also. According to Charles' law gas temperature makes a BIG difference. 15 degrees = over 20%.

A cell putting out 2LPM @ 104 degree gas, is 3 LPM @ 140 degree That's 50% !


Its been a while since I've done this kind of math so you might want to double check my math.



Edit Correction to my figures I used temperature in Celsius when i should have used temperature in Kelvin so volume difference is closer to 15% not 50%

Gas laws calculator
http://www.1728.com/combined.htm

HHO BLASTER
05-28-2009, 09:13 PM
So are you saying if i take the output of my cell and run it into a tee, of copper one copper leg i heat, and the other i don't, and both legs are measured, the heated one, will have a higher output

Gary

Q-Hack!
05-28-2009, 09:34 PM
Sort of... What you have is the same number of molecules attempting to take up more space.

*Taken from wiki*
Boyle's law states that P1V1=P2V2
Charle's law states that V1/T1=V2/T2
Gay-Lussac states that P1/T1=P2/T2
When you combine them you get (P1V1)/T1=(P2V2)/T2

P=pressure
V=volume
T=temperature

Using your example of running the gas through a Tee and each feed a 1 litre bottle. The hot gas will have a higher pressure and displace the water faster. However, as that gas cools the water would be sucked back into the bottle and show less gas.

Man, that sounds like a really cool high school science project. :p

HHO BLASTER
05-28-2009, 10:18 PM
Sort of... What you have is the same number of molecules attempting to take up more space.

*Taken from wiki*
Boyle's law states that P1V1=P2V2
Charle's law states that V1/T1=V2/T2
Gay-Lussac states that P1/T1=P2/T2
When you combine them you get (P1V1)/T1=(P2V2)/T2

P=pressure
V=volume
T=temperature

Using your example of running the gas through a Tee and each feed a 1 litre bottle. The hot gas will have a higher pressure and displace the water faster. However, as that gas cools the water would be sucked back into the bottle and show less gas.

Man, that sounds like a really cool high school science project. :p

Does this mean cells that run cooler are giving truer readings and if so the tube going into the meter should run into a coil that's in ice water to make everything a fair playing field like apples to apples

Painless
05-29-2009, 08:36 AM
Does this mean cells that run cooler are giving truer readings and if so the tube going into the meter should run into a coil that's in ice water to make everything a fair playing field like apples to apples

Absolutely, Gary. This is why temperature readings taken at the cell and of the gas temp should always be included in an MMW test for it to be meaningful.

Roland Jacques
05-29-2009, 09:13 AM
So are you saying if i take the output of my cell and run it into a tee, of copper one copper leg i heat, and the other i don't, and both legs are measured, the heated one, will have a higher output

Gary

I think you get the picture. But-- Let me add to Q-Hack's "Sort of..." part of that answer.
Sort of , but not really
Not really because the tee would keep it still a closed system, the pressure will be the same though out the system (provided theirs is no resistance is your lines... remember resistant is what makes pressure). so using a tee both would measure the same.


Does this mean cells that run cooler are giving truer readings and if so the tube going into the meter should run into a coil that's in ice water to make everything a fair playing field like apples to apples

To keep it apples to apples, yes all gases should be measured at the same temperature. (or adjusted to a standard by math formula)

That one thing that Alaska Larry does in his testing. he measures his gas temps.

Roland Jacques
05-29-2009, 09:33 AM
I believe you can factor out temp differences and even factor out water vapor using a modified bottle testing.

If you fill your 1 litter bottle with your HHO gas from your cell. then disconnect the hose. let that bottle stand for a few hours. the gas temp will become room temp (which 70 degrees should be our standard) AND the vapor will condensate out of it's gas state. then measure the contents. from this...

HHO BLASTER
05-29-2009, 01:27 PM
I believe you can factor out temp differences and even factor out water vapor using a modified bottle testing.

If you fill your 1 litter bottle with your HHO gas from your cell. then disconnect the hose. let that bottle stand for a few hours. the gas temp will become room temp (which 70 degrees should be our standard) AND the vapor will condensate out of it's gas state. then measure the contents. from this...

I agree a standard is needed, this would cut out some of the bullsh*t in this field.

mytoyotasucks
05-29-2009, 01:33 PM
I agree a standard is needed, this would cut out some of the bullsh*t in this field.

I thought this calc adjusts for temp - http://site.altpropulsion.com/MMWCalc.htm

Roland Jacques
05-29-2009, 11:11 PM
I thought this calc adjusts for temp - http://site.altpropulsion.com/MMWCalc.htm

Hmm interesting, that calculator shows temp having virtually no impact:confused: It seems that there is some discrepancies, that calculator does not jive with the gas laws... or at least the way i understand them.

Philldpapill
06-02-2009, 04:44 PM
I know a semiconductor company, FreeScale, makes some electronic sensors that measure air pressure. These sensors have a connection for tubing to be attached.

What I have in mind, is making a digital flow sensor using these pressure sensors. How do you measure flow with pressure? Simple - well, relatively... If you have the HHO gas going into a small compartment with a tiny hole drilled in it, the pressure inside this compartment will be higher as more HHO gas flows into it. This is analogous to Ohms law in electronics - the voltage across a resistor is proportional to the current through it. If the gas flow were current, and the pressure were voltage, this would be very similiar.

Granted, the flow/pressure relationship is somewhat nonlinear, but this IS a digital sensor, so if it were interfaced with something like my Digital HHO Controller, calculations could easily be made to determine the correct flow rate. Hey, there's another feature... HHO Production metering!

DodgeViper
06-19-2009, 08:20 PM
Make one, very easy to do....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aT5kN-aXWjQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aT5kN-aXWjQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Llew2_1
08-16-2009, 08:22 AM
Hi Dodge,
Thats great thanks very much.
Llew

mileageseeker
08-26-2009, 12:52 AM
There has been much debate about various methods used to measure the gas output of our electrolizers. For affordability I still favor the variable area meters for many reasons which I have previously stated, most prevalent being real-time measurement. I have also stated that the float method, having its inherent inaccuracies is still a good method for the home experimenter to use for relative measurements to deduce possible cell design improvements. However it is a totally unacceptable method for a seller of electrolyzers to use to claim cell performance. Posted here are pictures of our latest gas measurement instrument, The Alicat M Series Digital / Analog Mass Flow Meter. http://www.alicatscientific.com/products/gas-flow-meter.php As you can read on their website this meter is pressure and temperature compensated, measures 31 different gases, ect. Several IHHOI members are now using Alicats and we see it as our reference standard for measuring cell performance. I’m looking into developing procedures to verify the calibration of VA meters as referenced to the Alicat. FYI an Alicat able to measure to 20 LPM with HHO calibration can be had for slightly over $1000.00, for a few hundred dollars more you can purchase software to interface it to your computer. The pictured Alicat originally measured to 50 LPM, however having a turndown ratio of 100:1, I wanted the guaranteed accuracy on the low end to be at 300mlm instead of 500mlm so I had it recalibrated (certification number 0000038814) to measure a max of 30 LPM. I fabricated the battery bracket to afford portability, enabling field testing of installs unable to enter the lab. Once again in my opinion, using compensation for gas temperature, for convenience, real-time measurement, and affordability, a variable area flow meter with calibration for HHO is heads above anything floating in water. If you can afford ten to twelve+ times the cost, by all means call Alicat Scientific, talk to Jesse, and order one for yourself, you won’t regret it. Last Saturday, just for grins and my own edification, I ran around collecting materials and built a eudiometer patterned after the one built and displayed on youtube by Lutherp40, with a couple of my own design changes. Many kudos to Luther for all his excellent work, I do recommend to anyone wishing to step up from the "bottle in a bucket", build one of these, this is a slick tool for relative measurement. On the flow bench I have a "B3" from "Hydrogen Junkie" (OUTSTANDING cell). I ran it at at about 8 amps and the eudiometer took 43 seconds to register 500ml. Rounded that's .698LPM. Immediately switching to the Alicat (affectionately having been coined the disappoint meter by Spodie Odie) and read on the Mass flow scale .500LPM. You don't have to be Einstein to see that as an industry we should not, no, can not, endorse floating anything as a method to verify advertised performance claims. It's also real easy to see how so many people can arrive at completely erroneous MMW numbers.

mileageseeker
08-26-2009, 11:52 PM
I must post a retraction. During my conversation with Spodie tonight, I was corrected, he let me know that he does not call the Alicat the disappoint meter, he in fact refers to it as the depressometer. (depress-O-meter)

Roland Jacques
08-30-2009, 10:13 AM
Most "High tech flow meters" measure the velocity and density ... of the gases and then try to determine a volume from that, some types can be WAY off & some are spot on
The bottle measures the actual volume.
If the pump at a gasoline station (a velocity type flow meter) says it gave you 5 gallons of gasoline, yet your gas can (actual volume) only reads 4.5 gallons which one will you think is right?

If you really want to make your bottle/eudiometer testing accurate.
1. Let that gas stand for 1 hour, become a ambient 75 degree room temperature. Measure the gas shrinkage, and now you can factor that percent of shrinkage into your calculations of you future tests of that cell.
2. Let the steam condensate now the accuracy is even better.
3. And if you really want go to better accuracy, Then factor in your atmospheric pressure. http://www.turblex.com/altitude/index.cfm but even Denver’s -2 psi makes little difference
4.To improve time accuracy run you test repeatedly and take a average. A bigger bottles helps time accuracy also.

IMO. Sellers should always ALSO use the bottle method when advertising. If 95% of us use it It really is the standard. To use any other in advertising makes it impossible to hold sellers accountable. Seller can claim anything when they have the excuses, “We have the Triple X-Caliber flow meter and according to it we are right.” I’ve seen 34 MMW claims by sellers, and they say they use the best flow meter available so… Then you get it, and measure 4 MMW with the bottle method. Then they tell you the bottle method is wrong…

Gas law calculator
http://www.1728.com/combined.htm